browser_tabs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that this is a non-mutating discovery operation and warns that tab ownership matters. It omits whether results are scoped to the session's browser, whether tabs from multiple windows are included, and any ordering, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a no-annotation 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?

Two short sentences with no waste; the core action is front-loaded and the safety caveat follows immediately.

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 one-optional-parameter list tool this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations the agent gets no sense of the return shape (tab IDs, titles, URLs) or scope, which it would need to act on results with browser_click or browser_read.

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 port parameter already carries a detailed warning about never using 9222/9223 without human consent, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the port, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List open tabs"), which cleanly separates it from mutating siblings like browser_open, browser_close, and browser_close_mine. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 second sentence gives a safety constraint ("Tabs you did not open may be a human's work: do not touch them") that implies this tool is the safe discovery step before acting on tabs. However, it never states when to call this versus related tools or what to do next, so guidance is only implied.

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