navigate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'idle tab' allocation and navigation to a URL, but lacks details about permissions, error handling, what happens if no idle tab exists, or the tool's effect on browser state. This is inadequate for a tool that likely interacts with browser sessions.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 the complexity of browser navigation (interacting with tabs, network conditions) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover return values, error cases, or the tool's integration with sibling tools like 'get_pool_status' or 'release_tab', leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 both parameters ('url' and 'waitUntil') thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining URL format constraints or the practical implications of different 'waitUntil' enum values.

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 the action ('navigate') and resource ('idle tab to specified URL'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'launch' or other navigation-related siblings, which prevents a perfect score.

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 mentions 'idle 상태의 탭' (idle tab), which implies a prerequisite context but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'launch' or how it relates to sibling tools like 'release_tab'. No clear when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided.

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