browser_tabs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only lists actions without explaining side effects or requirements—e.g., whether closing a tab is irreversible, whether attach brings a tab to the foreground, or what stealth mode does. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap for a tool that can close or create tabs.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the actions with a colon list. Every word serves a purpose and there is no redundancy or filler, achieving optimal conciseness.

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?

The description provides a broad overview but leaves out details that would fully support usage: what the 'list' action returns, how index relates to attach/close, or the meaning of stealth and activate. Given there is no output schema, the description could have elaborated on return values or side effects. However, the schema richly documents parameters, so the description is minimally viable rather than inadequate.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to url, index, stealth, or activate; the action enum already mirrors the four listed actions. Therefore, the description neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

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 clear verb 'Manage' and explicitly lists the four supported actions (list, create, attach, close) with the resource 'browser tabs'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_navigate or browser_snapshot, though it does not name them explicitly. It is more specific than a generic 'manage' and adequately conveys the tool's scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Manage browser tabs' implies tab-specific operations, but there is no mention of when to prefer this over related tools (e.g., browser_navigate for navigation, browser_window for window management). No exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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