browser_tabs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavior beyond the name by disclosing that only shared tabs are listed, that actions target the active tab, and that unshared tabs are reported only as a count. It does not state that it is read-only, nor describe the return shape or ordering.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the primary action (listing shared tabs). The parenthetical is slightly awkward but earns its place by clarifying active-tab semantics.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers both halves of the result (shared tabs and the count of unshared ones) plus the active-tab targeting rule. It is nearly complete, with only the absence of explicit read-only confirmation as a minor 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to compensate for on the parameter side.

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 a specific verb (list) and resource (integrated-browser tabs shared with you), plus a second output component (count of unshared VS Code browser tabs). This clearly differentiates it from the action-oriented siblings like browser_tab_select, browser_tab_close, and browser_tab_new, though it never names them.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it should call this to discover available tabs. The parenthetical 'actions go to the active one' hints at the relationship with the tab-targeting siblings but does not explicitly say when to use this versus browser_tab_select or browser_status.

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