navigate_to

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool navigates to a non-tabBar page, but does not disclose whether the current page stays in the stack, whether query parameters are supported, or any side effects on the page navigation history. This is minimal and insufficient for safe invocation.

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, front-loading the key action and target. It is compact and to the point, though it is so terse that it leaves out important behavioral details, but that is a completeness concern rather than a conciseness defect.

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 (one param, no output schema), but the description does not address critical context such as page stack behavior (push vs redirect), whether the url can include query parameters, or success/failure semantics. Given the presence of sibling tools like redirect_to and switch_tab, this omission leaves an agent under-informed for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 covers the single url parameter fully (100% coverage) with a type, description, and example. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable because the schema already explains the parameter adequately. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a clear verb '跳转到' (navigate to) and specifies the resource as '应用内非 tabBar 页面' (in-app non-tabBar page), distinguishing it from tools like switch_tab which target tabBar pages. However, it does not explicitly say whether this pushes a new page onto the stack (navigateTo semantics) or replaces the current page, which makes it slightly ambiguous versus redirect_to.

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 states it is for non-tabBar pages, which gives one clear context signal and implicitly contrasts with tabBar navigation tools. It does not, however, explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like redirect_to or switch_tab, so an agent must infer the decision from sibling tools.

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