goto_start_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'navigate', which implies a view change, but does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., active session), or outcomes (e.g., error if window is closed). This lack of detail for a simple yet potentially state-changing action is insufficient.

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, grammatically correct sentence that directly states the action and target. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it perfectly concise for its simple purpose.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not mention any preconditions, failure modes, or effects beyond a generic navigation. For a tool with one parameter and likely simple behavior, a more thorough description is expected to cover edge cases or state changes, which is missing.

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 single parameter session_id is optional with a default, but the description does not explain its purpose or relation to the navigation. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not. Though the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the tool description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 action (navigate) and resource (main test-client window to the start page). It is clear and distinct from sibling navigation tools like goto_previous_window or goto_next_window, which operate on windows rather than a start page. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from potential overlaps, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when a start page is needed, but does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. Given the large number of sibling tools, explicit guidance would be valuable, and its absence warrants a low score.

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