switch_tab

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description discloses an important behavioral trait: 'All subsequent tool calls operate on this tab.' This indicates a persistent context change. It does not contradict annotations, as switching tabs is a UI state change, not a data mutation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences and a brief Args section. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff. The key behavior is front-loaded.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects), the description covers the essential behavior and side effect on subsequent calls. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. It lacks explicit error behavior or prerequisite (e.g., tab must exist), but this is acceptable for this simple operation.

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 schema provides no description for the 'name' parameter (0% coverage), so the description compensates with 'Tab identifier to switch to.' This adds basic meaning but lacks details about where to obtain the identifier or its format, which could be inferred from sibling list_tabs.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Switch the active tab.' It also adds scope by noting that subsequent tool calls operate on this tab. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_tab, close_tab, and list_tabs.

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 when to use the tool (when you want to change the active tab) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use open_tab to create a new tab.' The context with siblings helps, but the description itself offers no direct contrast.

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