navigate_page

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but the description extensively discloses behavioral traits: it waits for DOMContentLoaded, invalidates old script IDs, restores breakpoints when possible, and does not clear cookies/storage/cache/site data. This adds significant value beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds necessary detail (contrast with sibling, behavioral notes, parameter guidance). There is no fluff, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 3 parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers when to use, behavioral implications, parameter relationships (e.g., omit type when url provided), and integrates with sibling tools. No gaps are apparent.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides (the schema already explains url, type, and timeout). The description's contextual use cases (e.g., reproduce requests, trigger breakpoints) are helpful but do not enhance parameter semantics specifically. Hence score remains at baseline 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 clearly states the tool navigates, reloads, or moves through history in the currently selected page. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'new_page' by specifying when a separate tab is required. The verb and resource are explicit.

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 explicitly provides guidance on when to use this tool versus 'new_page' (when a separate tab is needed). It also advises on when to call 'clear_site_data' for a clean replay, and how to handle breakpoints using 'get_paused_info' and 'pause_or_resume'. This gives clear context for appropriate usage.

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