goto

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and openness (openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it replaces the current tab content, waits for DOM readiness, and returns an element count. This gives the agent meaningful expectations about side effects.

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 filler. The primary action and its key behavioral constraint ('replacing its content') are front-loaded, and the return summary is compact. Every sentence adds value.

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 one-parameter navigation tool, this is nearly complete: it states what happens, the wait condition, the return shape, and the next recommended action. The output schema handles detailed return structure, so the description does not need to. Minor gaps like URL format or error behavior are not critical given the annotations.

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% and the description does not elaborate on the url parameter beyond its name. There is no mention of expected URL formats, supported schemes, or whether relative URLs are allowed. With only one parameter, the impact is limited, but the description still fails to add meaning beyond the bare 'url' property.

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: 'Open a URL in the current tab, replacing its content, and wait until the DOM is ready.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like new_page by emphasizing 'current tab' and 'replacing its content,' so an agent can choose it accurately.

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 clear context for when to use this tool—navigating the current tab rather than opening a new one—and it directs the agent to 'call page_state for the candidate list' afterward. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the current-tab scoping implicitly differentiates it from new_page and browse.

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