browser_switch_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without detailing whether it modifies the active page, handles invalid indices, returns a value, or has side effects. This is a minimal behavioral signal, not misleading but far from transparent.

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 brief and to the point, consisting of a single clause with no redundant words. It is well-structured for a simple tool, though it sacrifices informative content for brevity.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), a concise description could suffice, but it must explain what switching a page means and how the index works. The description is too minimal to be considered complete, especially with no annotations or output schema to fill gaps.

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 schema describes a single 'index' parameter with no description, and the tool description does not explain what 'index' refers to (e.g., zero-based or one-based, page order). With 0% schema_description_coverage, the description must compensate, but it offers no parameter semantics at all.

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 uses a specific verb ('switch') and identifies the resource ('page'), clearly stating the core action. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools or clarify what 'page' means (tab vs content), so it misses the highest rating.

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?

No context is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having multiple pages open) or how it relates to browser_get_all_pages or browser_new_page. The absence of any usage direction leaves the agent to infer from the name alone.

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