goto_next_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the intended action and target, but does not explain side effects on the current active window, what happens if there is no 'next' window, or whether navigation changes focus state. This is a state-changing operation and the description omits those behavioral details.

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 a single sentence with no filler words; the core action and target are front-loaded and every word contributes. It is appropriately compact for a one-parameter navigation command.

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 is simple and has no output schema, so a short description can be viable. However, important context is missing: how the 'next' window is determined, whether this is a session-scoped operation, and how it relates to activate_window and goto_previous_window. It is minimally usable but not fully complete.

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 0%, and the description does not mention session_id at all, leaving the agent to infer how session_id relates to the navigation. Since the schema is empty, the description should compensate by explaining which session/window context the action applies to, but it does not.

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 the action ('Navigate') and the resource ('the main test-client window'), and specifies direction ('to the next open window'), which distinguishes it from obvious siblings like goto_previous_window or goto_start_page. It does not explicitly differentiate from activate_window or windows_list, but the core purpose is 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 phrase 'next open window' implies when this tool is useful, but the description provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives such as activate_window or goto_previous_window. No when-not conditions or exclusion criteria are given.

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