safari_navigate_and_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the main behavior (navigate and return page content) but does not mention side effects such as changing the current tab, the role of the receipt parameter for tab pinning, or any limitations. The schema covers parameters, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and benefit (saves a round-trip), and the second gives usage guidance. The description is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simple navigate-and-read tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It doesn't describe the return format in detail, but 'page content' is sufficient given no output schema exists. It could mention the need for a receipt to target a specific tab, but that's a parameter detail covered by the schema. Overall, the description is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 fully documents all four parameters (url, receipt, timeout, maxLength). The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose: 'Navigate to a URL and return the page content in one step.' It names the specific verb (navigate) and resource (URL/page content), and explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming safari_navigate and safari_read_page as the alternative combo it replaces.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use instead of safari_navigate + safari_read_page.' It clearly indicates when to use this tool (when both navigation and reading are needed) and names the alternative. It doesn't mention when not to use it (e.g., if you need to navigate without reading), but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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