切换标签页

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait: this is a stateful selection whose effect persists across subsequent console/network/DOM calls. It does not say whether the previous attachment is released, whether it is session-scoped, or how invalid IDs fail, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, then the consequence. Nothing is redundant and every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter, annotation-free selection tool with no output schema, the description conveys purpose, the state change, and its downstream effect. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid ID, prior attachment) to be fully 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 description coverage is 100% and the single targetId parameter is documented in the schema with the pointer to target_list. The description adds no syntax, format, or example detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (attach to a tab and make it the current capture target) and immediately differentiates itself by naming the scope of downstream tools it affects (console/network/DOM). An agent can distinguish it from target_list, which merely enumerates IDs, 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?

Implies when to use it: before invoking console/network/DOM tools, since those operate on whichever tab is selected. The schema points to target_list as the way to obtain an ID, so the prerequisite path is discoverable. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or state about what happens if an ID is invalid.

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