duplicate_firefox_tab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool duplicates a tab and verifies the new tab's URL and window, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention failure behavior, whether the original tab remains open, or any side effects beyond duplication.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, and verification step without filler or redundancy. Every element earns its place.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and the schema is rich, but there is no output schema and the description does not specify what the tool returns after verification. It covers the core behavior but lacks return-value detail and usage context, leaving moderate gaps.

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%, with the selector parameter fully documented via its nested anyOf options. The description adds only the phrase 'exactly identified,' which does not meaningfully supplement the schema's own 'Exactly one selector form' explanation. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Duplicate') with a clear resource ('Firefox tab') and adds unique scope ('exactly identified' and 'verify the new tab's URL and window'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_firefox_tab or move_firefox_tab.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_firefox_tab or wait_for_firefox_tab. It implies a use case (duplicating a tab by selector) but does not state exclusions or mention sibling tools.

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