browser_switch_page

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

The description discloses the main behavioral effect (changing the active page/tab) but no annotations are provided, so it carries the full burden. It does not mention what happens on invalid pageId, whether pages are opened/closed, or any return value or side effects.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the key information is presented first.

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 is adequate for a simple one-parameter tool given its complexity, but it lacks details about failure behavior and return value. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent must infer error handling, which leaves a clear gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by clarifying that pageId is the identifier of a page/tab obtained from browser_pages. It does not specify format further, but for a single string parameter this is sufficient.

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 verb ('Switch') and resource ('active page/tab'), and specifies the identifier source ('pageId from browser_pages'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_navigate, browser_new_page, or browser_close_page.

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?

It tells the agent that the pageId comes from browser_pages, which implies a prerequisite and context for use. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it misses the 'exclusions' level.

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