browser_switch_tab

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the action without detailing side effects (e.g., does it close current tab? is it reversible?), authorization needs, or constraints (e.g., index must be within range). The only extra info is in the schema parameter description, which notes the index is 0-based and from 'browser_list_tabs', but that is part of the schema, not the main description.

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 extremely concise—a single short sentence. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it may be too minimal for an effective tool description, but for conciseness alone it is efficient. No structural issues.

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 low complexity (single required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and the parameter is explained in the schema. However, it lacks any mention of preconditions, error states, or complementary tools (e.g., 'use browser_list_tabs to get indices'), which would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for its single parameter, with a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely repeats the concept. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Switch to a different tab by index' clearly states the action (switch tab) and the required resource (tab by index). It is specific and matches the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_new_tab' or 'browser_list_tabs', which are conceptually distinct, but still it conveys the core purpose effectively.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., browser must be started, tabs must exist), nor does it specify when not to use it. The context is entirely implicit, relying on the user to infer from the name and sibling tools.

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