zerodom_switch_tab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: node ids are per-tab, so you must re-read the returned graph before clicking or filling. It also states the tool returns the interaction graph, which is beyond what the input schema shows. It doesn't mention side effects like whether the previous tab is closed or if state is lost, but the critical per-tab id warning is valuable.

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 wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical per-tab warning is placed immediately after. Every sentence 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?

The tool has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists. The description explains the return value (interaction graph) and the critical caveat about per-tab node ids. It doesn't mention how to obtain the tab_id or what happens if the tab_id is invalid, but for a simple switch operation, the essential context is present.

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 mentions 'tab_id' implicitly by saying 'another open tab' and 'the tab you just switched to,' but it doesn't explain where to get the tab_id (e.g., from zerodom_list_tabs). The description adds some context but doesn't fully clarify the parameter's provenance or format.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Make another open tab active' and 'return its interaction graph.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zerodom_list_tabs and zerodom_close_tab by focusing on switching to an existing tab. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides clear context: use this to switch to another open tab, and it returns the interaction graph so you can re-read before interacting. It implies this is the tool to use when you need to change active tabs, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like zerodom_list_tabs for listing tabs. Still, the guidance is actionable and context-rich.

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