Navigate Arc

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it may change Arc's current tab, uses the user's existing profile, and explicitly states it does not read tabs, page content, cookies, or history. This goes beyond annotation defaults.

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?

Three sentences that front-load the core action and mechanism, with no wasted words. The non-reads statement is included efficiently.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, side effects, and non-reads. It doesn't mention prerequisites like Arc being running, but the sibling status tool indirectly covers that gap. Complete enough for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, and the url parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description reinforces the 'absolute HTTP(S)' constraint but adds little beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: navigate the running Windows Arc Browser to an absolute HTTP(S) URL. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling arc_browser_status by describing an action, not a status check.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus arc_browser_status or any alternatives. It provides useful context (may change current tab, uses existing profile) but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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