new_page

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

The description states the core behavior (opening a tab and loading a URL) and is consistent with the readOnlyHint=false annotation. It does not add deeper behavioral context such as wait behavior, foreground effects, or what happens to the current page, though the schema covers timeout and background 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?

Two short sentences make the core purpose immediately visible. However, the second sentence is not merely concise; it is inaccurate with respect to the required URL parameter, so it does not fully earn its place.

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 four schema-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal and leaves the agent without sibling-routing guidance. The contradictory 'project URL' fallback also makes invocation guidance unreliable, so the description is not complete enough for correct selection and calling.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no useful parameter-level semantics and actively confuses invocation by implying url can be omitted when it is required.

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 identifies the action with a specific verb and resource: opening a new tab and loading a URL. It implicitly distinguishes itself from navigate_page by emphasizing 'new tab,' but it does not name a sibling or explicitly explain the difference from navigating an existing page.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose new_page over navigate_page or other page-management tools. The only usage hint, 'Use project URL if not specified otherwise,' conflicts with the schema, where url is required, and is therefore misleading.

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