scout_navigate

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 adds useful behavior: path resolution is relative to the attached base URL, and back navigation is delegated to scout_back. However, it is silent on whether navigation waits for page load, how it affects the current session, or what errors may occur.

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 with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the back-navigation alternative is a useful, compact addition.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and fully documented schema fields, the description covers the essential invocation knowledge: target semantics, relative-path behavior, and the scout_back alternative. It omits return/wait behavior, but this is not critical for selecting or invoking this simple navigation command.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that paths are relative to the attached base URL and giving a concrete example ('/orders'). The session parameter is fully described in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Navigate to a URL or a path relative to the attached base URL.' It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling scout_back by explicitly routing back-navigation there. The scope is immediately clear.

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?

It states when to use the tool: for a URL or a path relative to the base URL. It also gives an explicit exclusion for the 'back' action by naming scout_back. It does not enumerate other alternatives like scout_click, but the core usage context is clear.

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