rnw_tabs_new

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses very little beyond the core action. It does not say whether the new tab becomes the active/focused tab, how it affects existing tabs, whether creation is idempotent, or what the call returns (e.g. a tab id), all of which matter for a state-mutating session tool.

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?

One short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 one-parameter tool this covers the essentials, but with no annotations and no output schema it leaves gaps an agent would care about: tab focus behavior, return value, and how it relates to rnw_navigate/rnw_tabs_select.

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% and the schema already documents the single url parameter as 'Optional URL to navigate to in the new tab'. The description merely restates this, adding no format, validation, or default-value detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb (create) and resource (new browser tab) plus the optional follow-on action (navigate to URL). It clearly contrasts with rnw_tabs_list/select/close by virtue of creating rather than managing, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from rnw_navigate, so it stops short of a 5.

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 word 'optionally' hints that navigation can be done separately (i.e. create a blank tab and use rnw_navigate), but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. No prerequisites or alternatives are named, leaving usage to inference.

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