navigate

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the basic action but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this requires an existing browser session, what happens on navigation failure, timeouts, or authentication needs. For a navigation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core action and has zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (navigation with multiple parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, dependencies on other tools (e.g., connect_to_browser), or what happens post-navigation, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (url, tabIndex, waitForSelector). The description implies navigation to a URL in a tab but adds no syntax, format, or usage details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Перейти по URL' - navigate to URL) and the target resource ('в указанной вкладке' - in the specified tab). It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'connect_to_browser' or 'list_tabs' which might have related functionality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active browser connection), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'connect_to_browser' for setup or 'wait_for_element' for post-navigation actions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.