List Tabs

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining row flags and the default scope, which is valuable beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose before the behavioral details. Every clause earns its place and contributes to correct tool invocation.

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 read-only listing tool with four optional parameters, the description covers the essential behaviors: default scope, row flags, and narrowing via scope. Minor details like ordering or result limits are not specified, but they are not critical for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema is fully documented at 100% coverage, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds only a minor clarification about the scope parameter's default and effect, which is otherwise already present in 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List Arc tabs') and immediately clarifies the key row semantics ('mine' and 'isActive'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_current_tab or close_tab even without naming them.

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 clearly states the default behavior ('Defaults to every tab') and the way to narrow it ('pass scope 'own' to narrow'), giving agents concrete context for invocation. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over alternatives, so it stops 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.