chrome_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 a critical behavioral trait: navigation targets a dedicated automation tab by default and never replaces the user's active tab. It does not mention side effects like history changes or whether the tab is brought to foreground, but the disclosed default-target behavior is significant and useful.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, the second clarifies the default target and a critical safety property. Every word earns its place.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is concise but covers the most important context: default target and non-disruption of the user's tab. It does not explain return values or failure modes, but the schema covers parameters well and the tool's behavior is relatively straightforward.

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 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds the key semantic that 'no target' means the dedicated automation tab, which clarifies the optional targetId and urlIncludes/titleIncludes matching behavior. However, it does not explain how targetId interacts with urlIncludes/titleIncludes or the exact meaning of 'background' beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Navigate') and resource ('a Chrome tab to a URL'), and immediately distinguishes its default behavior from the user's active tab. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like chrome_launch, chrome_tab, and chrome_snapshot.

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 explains the default target (dedicated automation tab) and explicitly notes it never replaces the user's active tab, which is key usage context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other navigation scenarios, but the default behavior is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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