Switch to Chrome tab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the main behavior: searching by title, switching tabs, and bringing Chrome to the front. However, it does not describe what happens on no match, and the only multiple-match behavior is documented in the schema rather than the description.

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 no filler. It communicates the core action and effect efficiently, and the schema handles parameter detail separately.

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 focus action, the description plus the rich index parameter documentation is largely sufficient. The main missing piece is explicit no-match/error behavior, but an agent can reasonably infer the outcome from the stated search-and-switch workflow.

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 both 'query' and 'index' parameters already have clear, detailed descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 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 description clearly states the action ('search open Chrome tabs by title and switch to the matching one') and the side effect ('bringing Chrome to the front'). This distinguishes it from siblings like open_chrome_tab or close_chrome_tab, even without naming them.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you want to focus an already-open Chrome tab. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over open_chrome_tab, focus_app, or list_chrome_tabs, nor does it mention exclusions such as Chrome not running.

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