navvi_browse

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses internal handling of navigation, clicking, typing, screenshots, cookie banners, login detection, CAPTCHAs (escalation to VNC), multi-step flows, and flow recipes. However, it lacks details on side effects like saving flows or specific permission requirements.

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 relatively long but each sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and structured logically with examples and behaviors. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 4 parameters, 1 required, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and return values. However, it lacks explicit documentation for 'max_steps' and 'persona', leaving some gaps.

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%. The description only partially clarifies 'instruction' and 'url' through examples, but does not explain 'max_steps' or 'persona'. The meaning of these parameters remains unclear, and the description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 this is the PRIMARY BROWSING TOOL for ANY web interaction, and explicitly names specific sibling tools (navvi_open, navvi_find, navvi_click, navvi_fill) to distinguish itself. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and describes the integrated capabilities.

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 to use this tool instead of manually calling atomic tools, and only fall back to those if this tool asks for guidance. It provides clear context on when to use it and when not to, including handling of cookies, login, and CAPTCHAs.

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