comet_tabs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'shows all open tabs' and helps 'coordinate multi-tab workflows,' which gives some behavioral context, but doesn't address important aspects like whether this requires browser permissions, if it works across browser windows, what happens when switching/closing tabs, or any rate limits. The description adds basic value but leaves significant gaps for a mutation-capable tool.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that each serve a purpose: the first states core functionality, the second adds value context. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose. While efficient, the second sentence could be slightly more precise about what 'coordinate' entails.

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 has 3 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable foundation but has gaps. For a tool that can perform mutations (switch/close tabs), more behavioral context would be helpful, especially regarding permissions, side effects, and return values. The description is minimally adequate but not fully complete for this complexity level.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'domain' matching works or what 'tabId' format to expect. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation entirely through the schema.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('view and manage') and resources ('browser tabs'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning its unique functionality for coordinating multi-tab workflows without duplicates. It goes beyond the name/title to explain what the tool actually does.

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 context ('helps coordinate multi-tab workflows without creating duplicate tabs'), suggesting when this tool might be beneficial, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tool comparisons are made, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.

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