browser_tabs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses one non-obvious behavior: click-opened popups become active automatically and that this tool can switch back. However, it doesn't clarify what the action/close does to the active tab or what the response looks like, leaving some behavioral detail to inference.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first phrase summarizes all operations, and the second sentence adds a single practical behavioral note. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 covers the tool's core purpose and an importent behavioral nuance, which is reasonable for a small utility tool. Yet with no output schema and no parameter explanation, an agent still lacks details about how to specify a tab or what happens when list/select/close is executed. It's adequate but has clear 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 coverate is 0% , and the description only loosely maps 'list / select / close' to the likely `action` values. It doesn't explain the `index` parameter, its null default, or how index relates to tab selection/closing. Since parameter documentation is absent from both schema and description, the agent gets insufficient guidance.

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 states a specific resource (tabs) and three specific verbs (list, select, close), which makes the tool's purpose immediately recognizable. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like browser_open or browser_click, which concern navigation and page interaction rather than tab management.

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 gives a concrete usage instruction: click-opened popups become active automatically, so use this tool to switch back. This is helpful contextual guidance for when to invoke the tool. It doesn't enumerate alternatives or explicit when-not scenarios, but the usage context is clear.

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