ghost_tab_find

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Find' implies read-only, non-navigating behavior, and the substring criterion is stated. However, it does not mention what is returned on success or failure, whether matching is case-insensitive, or whether search is scoped to a specific browser.

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 12-word sentence, immediately front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place and there are no redundant phrases.

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 simple tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it omits the browser parameter's role and the return value or behavior when no tab matches. An agent can invoke it, but may guess at the optional parameter and result format.

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 needed to document both parameters. It defines query as a substring for URL or title, but the optional browser parameter is left entirely unexplained; an agent cannot tell what values it accepts or what it selects.

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 names a specific verb ('Find'), a concrete resource ('a tab'), and a precise criterion ('URL or title contains a substring'). This clearly distinguishes it from page-oriented siblings like ghost_find and from navigation/action tab tools.

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?

Use is implied: call it whenever a tab must be located by URL or title substring. There is no explicit guidance contrasting it with ghost_browser_tabs for listing tabs or ghost_find for page-level search, but the purpose statement gives enough context for basic selection.

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