wb_find_tab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It adds useful behavioral details (fuzzy URL match with trailing slash/query tolerance, active:true borrowing the focused tab), which are valuable. However, it does not disclose what happens when no tab matches, whether errors are thrown, or the side effect of changing the current tab (a mutation), which are important for safe use.

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?

The description is only two sentences, yet it packs essential information: the primary action, the fuzzy matching tolerance, and the active:true behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and relatively simple behavior, the description covers the main functionality. However, it omits return value details and error cases (e.g., what if no tab matches? does it throw? returns null?). It also doesn't clarify whether selecting a tab has any other side effects beyond changing the active tab. A bit more detail would make it more complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains what 'fuzzy' means (trailing slash/query tolerant) and clarifies the active:true behavior ('borrows the focused session tab when possible'). This enhances parameter understanding beyond the schema's 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's action ('Select a tab as current') and resource (tab), and the fuzzy URL matching distinguishes it from listing tools like wb_list_tabs. However, 'Select a tab as current' is slightly terse and could be more explicit that it makes the tab the active/current one, rather than merely finding it.

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 implies usage for switching the active tab by URL or active flag, and it provides context about fuzzy matching and active:true behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wb_list_tabs for listing, wb_navigate for navigation), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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