Navigate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'named page' (reusing pages) and recommends a waitUntil value, but it fails to explain navigation behavior on failure, whether a new page is created if the named page does not exist, blocking semantics, side effects, or return value. This is a significant gap for a 9-parameter navigation tool.

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 short, meaningful sentences. No redundancy or filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a practical tip. Efficiently uses the available space.

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 has 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description is just 18 words. It does not explain the concept of 'named page,' how navigation interacts with the daemon-managed browser lifecycle, error handling, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity, the description is notably incomplete, leaving the agent without critical context.

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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal parameter-specific value beyond the schema: only the recommendation for waitUntil. This meets the baseline of 3 since schema coverage is high, but the added insight is limited.

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 'Navigate a named page to a URL,' specifying the verb (navigate) and resource (a named page to a URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dev_browser_page_open (which likely opens a new page) and dev_browser_click (which may cause navigation indirectly). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides a concrete usage guideline: 'Prefer waitUntil=domcontentloaded for local dev servers.' This offers context-aware advice but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use the tool. It implies the tool is for direct navigation, which is clear from its name.

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