tab_switch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that this is STATE_MUTATING and that it changes active tab focus, which is the essential behavioral fact. It omits error behavior for out-of-range indices and whether prior tab state is preserved, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short, labeled clauses (purpose, WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, LIMITATIONS) with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. Every sentence adds usable information.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, mutation semantics, and a validity constraint. Remaining gaps are minor edge-case details such as failure behavior on an invalid index.

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% and the single 'index' parameter is already documented as 0-based from tab_list, so the description largely repeats structured data. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 (switch) and resource (active tab focus) with the addressing scheme (0-based index), which cleanly separates it from siblings like tab_list, tab_new, tab_close, and pane_focus. An agent can identify the operation 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 WHEN TO USE block gives an explicit trigger (toggling between multiple open chart tabs) and the LIMITATIONS line ties the input to tab_list as the source of valid indices. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use tab_list first, or pane_focus for pane-level focus), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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