Bring tab to front

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and discloses the key behavioral trait: it 'changes what the user sees,' and that background tabs remain read/operable/capturable without it. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., invalid tab) or that state is otherwise unaffected, so it falls short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the usage constraint and the reason behind it. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 UI-visibility operation with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. The main omission is any note about behavior on an invalid/missing tab, which would round it out.

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 100%, so slot, tab, and agent are already fully documented (including the port arithmetic and subagent naming rule). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Brings a tab to the front of its Chrome window') with the scope (its window) made explicit. The parenthetical distinguishes it from read/operate tools like browser_snapshot or browser_text, so an agent can tell when this visibility-only action is warranted versus those siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('only when the user wants it') and when not ('no need to bring them forward to work'). This is a rare case of clear when/when-not guidance that prevents an agent from pointlessly stealing user focus.

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