browser_list_tabs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list', which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, has no side effects, or what the output format is. This lack of detail leaves potential side effects ambiguous.

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 sentence of 10 words, with the verb placed first. It is highly concise and front-loaded, containing no unnecessary information.

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?

Despite its simplicity, the description lacks completeness because it does not specify what information is returned (e.g., tab IDs, titles, URLs). Since there is no output schema, the agent must infer the return format, which could lead to incorrect usage when chaining with other browser tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, 0 parameters default to a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter information since there are none.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'all open tabs', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_switch_tab and browser_new_tab by focusing solely on listing existing tabs.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a specific tab index is needed or when to use browser_get_content. It simply states what it does without any contextual usage advice.

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