listTargets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses workflow constraints (must ask user, must wait), relays the '_ui' field, and implies a blocking behavior. However, it doesn't explain what happens if the port is wrong or if no tabs are available, or whether the operation is read-only (though 'list' implies it). The description adds significant context beyond just 'list tabs'.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action, then adds mandatory workflow constraints. Each sentence serves a purpose (step indicator, listing requirement, user interaction requirement, safety instruction, relay instruction). It's slightly longer than strictly necessary but all content is valuable. No fluff.

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?

For a simple list operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the workflow context, mandatory interactions, and what to do with the response ('_ui' field). However, it doesn't describe error handling (e.g., if the port is unreachable) or what happens if no tabs are open, which would make it fully comprehensive. Given the tool's simplicity, this is almost complete.

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 coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'port' is fully described with default and type). The description does not add extra meaning to the parameter, but since the schema already documents it and there's only one simple parameter, the baseline 3 is appropriate. The description correctly doesn't repeat the parameter details.

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 tool lists open Chrome tabs for debugging, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('open Chrome tabs'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning it's a distinct step in a workflow, though it doesn't name an alternative. The multiple constraints (show list, ask user, wait) make its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance (STEP 2), mandatory actions (show full list, ask which URL), and prohibitions (never skip, never guess, even with one tab). It also instructs to wait for user reply before proceeding to connect(), effectively telling when not to proceed. This fully satisfies the dimension.

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