Find Stale Tabs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it reads from Arc's own data file and needs no Apple Events, and it reports duplicates across the whole sidebar — details the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and behaviour. The appended 'pass its id to close_tab' is useful but slightly smushes a usage hint into the behavior block; still, virtually no wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (space, pin state, duplicate URLs), and it explains the data source. It stops short of describing result shape/pagination, but coverage is solid for this moderate-complexity query tool.

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%, so days, limit, space, and include_duplicates are already fully documented in the schema. The description only loosely implies day-based idle filtering and duplicate reporting, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides — the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Find tabs the user has not touched for a number of days') plus ordering ('oldest first') and returned fields (space, pinned/unpinned/top app, duplicate URLs). An agent can distinguish this from list_tabs and sidebar_tree without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context for acting on results by naming the follow-up tool ('pass its id to close_tab'), which routes the agent correctly. It does not state when-not-to-use or contrast against the similar list_tabs/sidebar_tree siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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