add_tab

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool adds a tab and returns its index, and explains mode and row_height behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions needed, or whether the operation is reversible. Given the simple nature of adding a tab, the description is adequate but could be more transparent.

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 concise, using one sentence and two bullet-like lines. It is front-loaded with purpose. However, a more structured format (e.g., listing parameters) could improve readability without adding length.

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 presence of an output schema, the description correctly omits return details beyond index. However, with 6 parameters and only 2 explained, the description is incomplete for a tool of this complexity. The sibling list is large, but the description sufficiently distinguishes the tool.

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 compensate. It explains two parameters (mode and row_height) with semantics and defaults, but fails to describe the other four parameters (icon, rows, title, columns). Title is required and omitted entirely. This leaves gaps in understanding for the 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 'Add a tab to the buffer' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly mentions the return value (index). Among siblings like add_control or add_group, this uniquely identifies tab addition, providing distinction.

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 provides guidance on when to use 'flow' vs 'grid' mode, including use cases for flow (full-page map/chat/cardList/plain form). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, which would improve clarity.

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