open

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool waits for page load, returns HTTP status on error, and reports dialogs, blocked requests, and JavaScript errors. However, it does not clarify side effects on current review state, session, or previous navigation history.

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 tight and front-loaded: action, wait behavior, usage intent, return value, and a clear safety constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant phrasing.

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 single-parameter navigation tool with a fully documented schemaable path, the description is complete. It even explains return values despite the lack of an output schema, covers error handling, and states the external-site restriction.

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 fully describes the single path parameter with examples and the origin constraint. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('Open a page of the app in the review browser') and a concrete resource ('page of the app'), with a clear wait-for-load behavior. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like capture, screenshot, and start_review by explaining it begins a walk or returns to a known screen.

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 says when to use it: 'begin a walk on a given screen or to return to a known one.' It also states a constraint ('Pages on other sites are refused'), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative navigation tools like back or click.

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