jev_user_tabs

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation and the phrase 'available to claim' adds context about tab state, but it does not describe the output format, error behavior, or whether IDs are returned for later use with jev_claim_tab.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, target, and relevant scope ('available to claim') compactly and clearly.

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 zero-parameter, simple listing tool, the description provides adequate context by naming the resource and the claim-related purpose. It is slightly incomplete because there is no output schema and the description does not specify what fields or identifiers the returned tabs include, but the low complexity keeps this from being a major gap.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document beyond what the schema shows. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter clarification is needed at all.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('existing browser tabs available to claim'). The phrase 'available to claim' distinguishes this listing tool from the sibling jev_claim_tab and other browser tools, so an agent can clearly identify its purpose.

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: it lists tabs that can later be claimed, which suggests using it before jev_claim_tab. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving the usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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