focus_browser_tab

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which matches 'bring to the front' (changes active-tab state, non-destructive). The description adds no auth needs, rate limits, or failure behavior, but with annotations covering the safety profile this is a modest gap rather than a serious one.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence and the parameter guidance after. The Args block uses a slightly raw docstring style but wastes no words.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the definition supplies the essential action and parameter formats. Missing failure behavior (e.g., no-match tab) is minor.

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 description must carry the burden, and it does: it specifies the accepted formats for 'tab' (tab number, window.tab, or text from title/URL). This adds real selection meaning beyond the bare string-typed schema property.

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 ('Bring a Chrome tab to the front') that is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like list_browser_tabs, read_browser_tab, or close_browser_tabs. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.

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 purpose implies when to use it (to switch active tab), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. No prerequisites, error conditions, or sibling comparisons are given.

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