webview_navigate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the inspectable requirement, which is a key behavioral trait, and notes it's often disabled in production builds. However, it omits error handling or failure behaviors.

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?

Two efficiently worded sentences with no unnecessary information. The core action and critical precondition are front-loaded.

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 navigation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers main actions and a key precondition. It lacks details on return values or error states, but is largely adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it repeats that 'goto' requires 'url' and mentions auto-selection of webviewId, but doesn't elaborate on parameter types or edge cases.

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 tool drives WebView navigation with specific actions (goto, back, forward, reload) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like webview_eval and webview_inspect by focusing on navigation.

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 implies usage by listing actions and mentions a critical requirement (inspectable WKWebView), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclude scenarios.

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