browser_tab_select

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, open-world, not destructive). The description adds a non-obvious behavioral constraint beyond that: tabs occupied by other agents are unavailable, which is concurrency context an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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, zero padding, with the id source and the availability restriction front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 tab-switching tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers source of ids and the key restriction. It could note what state the agent sees after the switch, but the essentials are present.

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 the single tabId is already documented as coming from browser_tab_list. The description repeats the same provenance without adding format or validation detail, so 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 the resource (another tab) and the intent (work in it), with the id source named. The verb 'work in' is softer than the tool name's 'select', so it's clear but not maximally precise about what switching focus actually entails.

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?

Explicitly points to browser_tab_list as the source of valid ids and states a real exclusion: tabs held by other agents cannot be selected. It does not distinguish this from browser_tab_new or say when a switch is preferable, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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