Switch To Tab

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds non-obvious behavior the annotations do not: it blocks until the user stops typing/moving the mouse, and returns userActive true on timeout. That is exactly the kind of blocking/failure semantics an agent needs to avoid hanging.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the core action first, then the routing advice, then the blocking/failure caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the key gaps (visibility impact, blocking, failure signal). It could note that activate controls whether Arc is brought to the front, though the schema already describes that parameter.

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 100%, so tab_id and activate are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond echoing 'a tab by id,' which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Make a tab the active tab in its window'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_current_tab (reads) and list_tabs (enumerates). An agent can pick it apart from close_tab or open_url without opening the 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 an explicit when-not rule: 'prefer reading a tab by id when you only need its content,' which steers the agent away from switching when only content is wanted. It stops short of naming the specific alternative tool (e.g. get_page_content), leaving a small inference step.

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