ghost_tab_describe

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the output is a structured list containing visible interactive elements, selectors, and coordinates. It does not mention side-effect safety, failure modes, or whether results are bounded by the limit parameter, but the read-only inspection nature is reasonably implied.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The output definition is front-loaded, followed immediately by practical usage guidance. Every sentence 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 has three parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to clarify required tab semantics and optional limit/browser behavior; it does neither. The return value is described, but the input side is too underspecified for confident invocation.

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%, and the description adds nothing about the tab, limit, or browser parameters. An agent must guess what tab identifies and what limit caps. There is no parameter-level guidance in the description to compensate for the empty schema descriptions.

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 returns a structured list of visible interactive elements with selectors and coordinates. It gives the tool a specific role: helping the agent decide what to click. It distinguishes itself from screenshot-based tools, though not from nearby tools like ghost_tab_find.

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 explicitly says to prefer this tool over screenshots when deciding what to click. This is a direct when-to-use statement with a named alternative. It does not cover when screenshots would be better, but the core usage context is clear.

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