manage_tabs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the tabId requirement, which is essentially schema information. It doesn't indicate which actions are read-only versus mutating (e.g., list/get_url are safe reads, while close/switch/create modify state), nor does it disclose side effects or return behavior.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant or filler text. Every word 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?

This is a multi-action tool with no output schema, so the description should clarify what each action returns or does behaviorally. It only lists actions without explaining results (e.g., what 'list' returns, what 'get_url' provides). The lack of behavioral and return-value detail makes the description incomplete for confident tool invocation.

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% with each parameter described, including enum values and field purposes. The description adds the explicit note about tabId being required for close/switch, but this is already present in the schema. Thus, the description adds little beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.

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 tool manages browser tabs and enumerates specific actions: list, create, close, switch, or get current URL. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like browser_action or perform_interaction.

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?

It provides clear context that this tool is for tab-level operations and includes a useful constraint: 'Tab ID required for close/switch.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so it misses the top score.

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