switch_tab

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions switching and returning tab info, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires an existing browser session, if it changes the active tab in a visible way, potential errors (e.g., invalid IDs), or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation-like operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which should document the 'tab info object'), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with 2 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is too minimal—it doesn't explain parameter semantics or behavioral context, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description doesn't explain what 'session_id' or 'page_id' mean, their formats, or how to obtain them (e.g., from 'get_tabs_info'). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely ambiguous.

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 action ('switch to a specific browser tab') and the outcome ('return the tab info object'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tabs_info' (which likely lists tabs without switching) or 'close_tab' (which closes rather than switches), missing full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used after 'get_tabs_info' to identify a target tab, or how it relates to navigation tools like 'navigate_to'. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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