comet_tabs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the available tab actions and their parameter associations, but does not mention side effects, preconditions (e.g., a connected browser or existing tab), or failure behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a clean, scannable Args block. Every line adds specific semantic value, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description completely covers the parameters and action vocabulary, and an output schema exists for return values. However, it does not mention prerequisites such as whether a browser connection is already required, nor what happens with invalid indices or missing URLs for new tabs. This leaves minor but real 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the meaning and allowed values of action, the 0-based role of tab_index for switch/close, and the role of url for the new action. Every parameter receives meaningful semantic context absent from the schema.

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 resource ('tabs in the Comet browser') and enumerates the core operations: list, new, switch, close. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like comet_navigate, comet_read_page, and comet_screenshot, which are page-level or browser-level operations.

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 clear context: an agent should use this tool whenever it needs to manipulate browser tabs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5, but the action list leaves little ambiguity about its intended use.

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