go_to_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does unusually well: it explains tab lifecycle (new tab if none active, otherwise the task's tab), guarantees it never touches the user's focused tab, and notes that later actions keep targeting the same tab regardless of user focus changes. It still omits error behavior, auth expectations, and return values.

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?

Well front-loaded: the scope caveat comes first, then the core action, then the behavioral detail. Slightly long in the trailing tab-targeting clause, but every sentence adds actionable information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral contract (which tab is targeted and how that persists). Only error/return semantics are absent, which is minor for this tool type.

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 50%: 'intent' is documented in the schema but 'url' is not. The description's 'Navigate to URL' only marginally clarifies the url parameter, adding no format or resolution details beyond the parameter name. Baseline 3 is appropriate for this partial coverage.

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 (navigate) and resource (URL), and additionally scopes it to the real Chrome browser via the OctoLimb extension, distinguishing it from hypothetical in-app navigation. An agent can tell what it does without opening the 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?

The bracketed clause 'use only when the task requires acting on a real website' gives a clear positive/negative usage condition. It does not name specific alternatives among siblings like open_tab or search_google, so routing between those still requires inference.

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