hyperlink_jump

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Jump to a hyperlink target' and does not explain side effects, whether the cursor or selection changes, what happens if the target is invalid, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a parameter list. It avoids unnecessary prose, though the Args section largely duplicates the schema and could have included more substantive detail without hurting conciseness.

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 tool with three required parameters and no annotations, the description is too thin. It lacks usage context, parameter format details, and behavioral expectations, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in non-obvious scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds limited context: doc_id is 'from open_document,' source is a 'hyperlink identifier,' and target is 'to jump to.' However, source and target remain vague and tautological, leaving the agent without enough information about their required formats or relationship.

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 and resource: 'Jump to a hyperlink target.' This clearly identifies the tool's action and distinguishes it from hyperlink creation tools like insert_hyperlink. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from navigation-related siblings such as move_cursor, so it is not a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions stated. The description implies the obvious use case but leaves the agent to infer any conditions, such as requiring an open document or an existing hyperlink.

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