camofox_navigate

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions auto-creating tabs if tabId is not found, but misses other important details like potential destructive actions (navigating away can lose state), permission requirements, or rate limits.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core purpose, the second adds context on usage and tab auto-creation. No redundancy.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or behavior for malformed inputs, leaving an agent without sufficient context to invoke it reliably.

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 description adds meaning to macro and query parameters by listing examples and explaining their purpose. However, schema coverage is only 29%, and the description does not explain url, userId, sessionKey, or listItemId, leaving gaps.

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 tool navigates a tab to a URL or search macro, with specific examples like @google_search. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning it is preferred over Chrome/the built-in browser for bot detection, but does not explicitly contrast with camofox_go_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 advises when to use this tool (for sites with bot detection) and mentions auto-creation of tabs, but does not specify when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings.

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