navigate

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does so richly: redirect-following return value, agent-scoped tabs, TAB_NOT_OWNED cross-agent rejection, a configurable tab cap (default 8, range 1-64), tab_id auto-resolution, and a full change_report contract including fields and truncation/hint fallback. This is far beyond what structured fields provide.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then organizes the rest under labeled sections (When to use, Related, Multi-agent, RETURNS change_report). It is dense and somewhat long, but nearly every clause carries actionable information rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates fully: it explains the return value (final URL), the change_report contents, truncation behavior, and the multi-agent tab constraints. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters in detail. The description largely restates the tab_id ownership/auto-resolve rule rather than adding new per-parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Open a URL in the active browser tab") and immediately notes it returns the final post-redirect URL. It also names the adjacent siblings it should be sequenced with (read_page, list_tabs), letting an agent place it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance ("as the first step to reach a target website") and routes to follow-on tools via the Related section. It lacks an explicit when-NOT clause (e.g. versus open_tab or refresh), so it stops short of a 5.

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