navigate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the call returns after loading settles, that it retires ref_N from earlier read_page calls, that Firefox opens in a separate automation profile without per-site approval, and that alerts/beforeunload are cleared via firefox_dialog. This is unusually thorough and covers side effects, environment behavior, and error recovery.

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 longer than typical but every sentence earns its place: it covers purpose, fallback logic, mandatory cases, return behavior, Firefox specifics, and alert handling. It is front-loaded with the core action and then layers detail. No redundant filler; the only slight deduction is that it is denser than necessary, but it remains well-structured and readable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two parameters, special values, batch context, browser-specific behavior, return semantics) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly. It explains all edge cases, prerequisites, and side effects. No missing information that would cause a mis-invocation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains the 'back'/'forward' literal values, the fallback tab selection logic, and the mandatory/optional contexts for tabId. It also clarifies URL normalization (adding https://) and the distinction between standalone calls and browser_batch. This goes well beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 opens with a precise statement: 'Send a tab to an address, or walk that tab through the history it has already built.' This distinguishes navigation from reading (read_page), form input, and other siblings. It also names the two distinct modes (direct navigation and history traversal) clearly, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does.

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 gives explicit conditions: 'Only url is always required' and explains when tabId can be omitted, when it is mandatory (for 'back'/'forward' and inside browser_batch), and when it is advisable ('whenever the group holds several pages'). It also contrasts with firefox_dialog for handling blocked loads and mentions the tab group behavior. This is comprehensive, actionable guidance with no ambiguity.

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