navigate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs navigation and reports the final URL, title, and HTTP status, which are key behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects like waiting for load or potential failures, but for a basic navigation tool this is sufficient and non-contradictory.

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 concise sentence that states the action and the return value. There is no fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters (100% schema coverage). The description mentions the output fields (final URL, title, HTTP status), which is sufficient for its simple functionality. However, it doesn't elaborate on side effects like network activity or page load waiting, but given the simplicity and no output schema, it covers the core essentials. Slightly better than average.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (url and timeout_ms), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action (navigate) and the resource (URL), and specifies the expected outcomes (final url, title, HTTP status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like go_back, go_forward, and reload_page by indicating it navigates to a new URL rather than performing in-page actions.

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 the tool should be used to load a new URL, which is clear from the context. It doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous for the given set of browser tools. The mention of returning final URL hints at handling redirects, providing contextual clarity.

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