charlotte_navigate

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns a page representation, specifies the default minimal detail contents (landmarks, headings, interactive element counts), and mentions the 'summary' option for more detail. While it doesn't cover failure modes, it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'navigate' statement.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every phrase earns its place. It efficiently communicates the primary function, return type, default output detail, and an alternative tool reference without any fluff.

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?

For a navigation tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return representation and the effect of the 'detail' parameter. It also names an alternative for element location. Minor gaps exist around failure behavior and exact output semantics of the 'summary' vs 'full' detail levels, but the schema fills in parameter specifics.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds context about the default detail behavior and what the returned representation includes, which supplements the 'detail' parameter. However, it doesn't add new meaning for url, timeout, or wait_for beyond what the schema provides, keeping this at baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Load a URL in the active page') that clearly defines the tool's core function. It distinguishes itself from sibling navigation tools (back, forward, reload) by focusing on URL loading, and also clarifies its relationship to charlotte_find.

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 explicitly directs users to charlotte_find for locating specific elements, providing a clear alternative. It also explains when to use the 'summary' detail level, giving context on how to adjust output. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use navigate, but the alternative guidance is strong enough for a 4.

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