browser_navigate

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only covers timing behavior (explicit execution timing and timeout handling). It omits key behaviors like the navigation effect (loads a URL), side effects (changes current page), required session state, or any potential destructive actions. The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's full behavior.

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 short (two sentences) but poorly structured. The first sentence redundantly names the tool without adding value. The second sentence launches into timing parameters without first stating the tool's purpose. It could be more concise by front-loading the core action, but it is not overly verbose.

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 complexity (9 parameters, core navigation action, timing subtleties), the description is incomplete. It does not state the primary function, explain required parameters (url, session_id), or provide context on navigation outcomes (e.g., page loaded state). The output schema exists, but the description still lacks necessary context for correct usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the timing parameters (expected_runtime_seconds, timeout_seconds, check_after_seconds, poll_interval_seconds, on_timeout) but ignores core parameters url and session_id. It also doesn't explain wait_until or timeout_ms. The addition is partial and leaves significant ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly state that the tool navigates the browser to a URL. Instead, it emphasizes execution timing parameters. The name 'browser_navigate' implies the purpose, but the description lacks a clear statement of the core function, making it somewhat vague. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser_open.

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 guidance on choosing timing parameters and handling timeouts (use 'continue_background' for long work, 'kill' or 'return_partial' for bounded work). However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternative browser tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or context for use.

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