safari_navigate

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

The description discloses important behavioral details: it waits for the page to load, returns the title and URL, and returns a fresh receipt when the origin changes, with instruction to use that new receipt thereafter. This gives a clear picture of the tool's side effects and output without overstating.

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, perfectly concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core action (navigate to URL), then adds the optional pinning behavior, wait time, and return value information without redundancy.

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 complexity of navigation and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (title, url, optional receipt) and the wait behavior. It omits error handling or edge cases but is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke the tool correctly in typical scenarios.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal new semantic value, only echoing the schema's note about receipt for pinning. No extra details about parameter constraints or interactions are provided.

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 that the tool navigates the current tab to a URL, and explicitly mentions the ability to pin the tab by passing a receipt. It also differentiates itself from reading tools by stating it waits for page load, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 a specific usage instruction (pass receipt to pin) and mentions waiting for load, but does not explicitly compare with sibling navigation tools like safari_navigate_and_read or safari_go_back. It gives partial guidance on when to use this tool but lacks a clear contrast with alternatives.

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