scout_tab_switch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds the key behavioral detail that subsequent navigation (scout_goto) will target the new tab. It does not disclose all possible side effects, but for a simple switch operation this is sufficient.

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 sentences, front-loading the core action and then providing a critical behavioral note. No extraneous words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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, clear purpose), the description fully covers what the tool does, how to use the parameter, and what happens after use. The presence of an output schema does not require explanation of return values, so completeness is high.

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 the schema already describes the 'tab' parameter as a CDP short ID. The description repeats this information but adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 switches the active tab using a CDP short ID, which is distinct from sibling tools like scout_tab_close (closes) and scout_tabs (lists). The verb 'switch' and resource 'active tab' are specific and unambiguous.

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 specifies that the tab ID comes from 'scout_tabs output' and notes that after switching, 'scout_goto() targets the new tab,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling list implies alternatives for other tab operations.

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