browser_switch_tab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say what happens if the tabId is invalid or closed, whether the switch implies focusing the window, or whether navigation is triggered on activation — all relevant unknowns for a tab-switching operation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 simple (one required integer parameter, no annotations, no output schema), so a short description is defensible. However, an agent still lacks guidance on sourcing the tab ID and on error behavior for stale or invalid IDs.

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 parameter is documented as 'Numeric ID of the tab to activate'. The description adds nothing beyond this — the phrase 'by its tab ID' simply repeats what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (switch to) and resource (browser tab) are clear, but the phrasing largely restates the tool name, and the only added element — 'by its tab ID' — duplicates the schema. It makes no attempt to distinguish itself from siblings like browser_list_tabs, browser_new_tab, or browser_close_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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of the prerequisite of obtaining a tab ID (presumably via browser_list_tabs). An agent must infer the workflow entirely from sibling names.

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