redirect_to

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key side effect: closing the current page and replacing the stack top. This is important navigation behavior that agents need to know. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but for a simple navigation tool, this is sufficient transparency.

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, concise sentence with the action front-loaded and the behavioral side-effects in parentheses. Every word earns its place, and no filler or redundancy is present.

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 navigation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose, target page type, and behavioral side-effect. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it lacks explicit edge-case or error handling notes, which are not essential for typical use.

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 input schema provides full coverage for the single parameter 'url' with a description ('需要跳转的应用内非 tabBar 页面路径') that matches the tool description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 '重定向到应用内非 tabBar 页面（关闭当前页面，替换栈顶）' clearly states the action (redirect), the target (in-app non-tabBar page), and key behavioral details (closes current page, replaces stack top). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like switch_tab, navigate_to, and navigate_back.

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 implies usage for non-tabBar pages by explicitly stating '非 tabBar 页面', which contrasts with switch_tab (for tabBar pages). It also clarifies that it closes the current page and replaces the stack top, differentiating it from navigate_to (which pushes a new page) and navigate_back (which pops). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide 'when to use vs when not to use' guidance.

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