switch_tab

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

The description reveals a key behavioral trait—'without focusing the browser'—which goes beyond the annotations. It also explains that the operation sets state for later calls. While the annotations include destructiveHint: true, the description does not address any destructive aspects, but it does not contradict the annotation either. It adds useful context about side effects (state change) and the alternative for foreground work.

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 two sentences long, with the primary purpose stated first, followed by the ambiguity rule and a pointer to alternatives. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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's complexity (four optional parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description provides all necessary context for correct invocation. It covers selection methods, ambiguity resolution, and when to use alternative tools, leaving no critical gap.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must fully explain parameter usage. It does so by mapping each parameter: browser name to the browser parameter, url_pattern to 'URL substring', session_id to the explicit instruction for ambiguous matches, and activate to the boolean flag. This is complete and actionable for an agent.

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 tool's action: setting the target tab for later calls, and specifies the selection criteria (session id, URL substring, browser name). It also distinguishes itself from activate_tab by noting that it does not focus the browser, making its purpose 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?

It explicitly instructs when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use activate=true or activate_tab when foreground work is required.' It also provides guidance for ambiguous matches, directing the user to pass the full session_id when multiple tabs match a URL substring.

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