switch_tab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses foregrounding behavior but omits whether the action requires permissions, what happens if the tab is already active or invalid, whether it changes focus across windows, and what the operation returns. This is a significant gap for a mutation/UI-control tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action and its purpose efficiently.

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 simple tab-switching tool with complete parameter schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but thin. It does not mention edge cases, permissions, or return behavior, and with no annotations or output schema, more context would improve reliability.

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%, and the schema itself documents the single parameter ('Tab id from list_tabs'). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Bring') and resource ('a tab') with the outcome ('to the foreground'), making the tool's effect immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tab tools like new_tab or close_tab, though the distinction is implicit.

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 implies when to use the tool ('so the human sees it') but provides no explicit when-to-use criteria, prerequisites, or alternatives to consider. Context is inferable but not spelled out.

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