browser_navigate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and covers the key behaviors: directional movement, left/right folder collapse/expand, and the returned focused node. It does not mention whether steps/shift extend the range or whether collapse/expand has any lasting effect, but the core traversal behavior and return value are transparent.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action, then adds the collapse/expand clarification and the return-value benefit. Every clause earns its place and no repetition of schema defaults appears.

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 simple traversal tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return contract and the special left/right behavior. It is slightly incomplete because shift and steps semantics are not explained anywhere, but an agent can still safely invoke the common navigation path with defaults.

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 schema provides no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains the direction parameter's allowed values and the left/right behavior, and it describes the return value, but steps and shift are left to inference from their names/defaults. This is useful partial compensation, not complete 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?

The description names a specific action, 'Move the browser selection', gives the supported directions, and notes the distinct left/right collapse-expand behavior. It clearly identifies the tool as relative tree navigation rather than absolute selection, separating it from browser_select and browser_focused without needing to open their schemas.

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?

It explains the intended use case: walking the browser tree without screenshots because the newly focused node is returned. It does not explicitly state when to prefer browser_select or other browser tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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