List shared browser tabs

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

The annotation already declares read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral nuance by specifying that it lists only permitted tabs, not all tabs, which is not directly inferable from the annotations alone.

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, tight sentence conveys the entire purpose and scope with no redundant words or restatement of the tool name.

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 parameterless, read-only list operation with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and the boundary it operates within. No additional context is necessary.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is complete, so there is nothing for the description to add. Baseline is 3 per the rubric for high schema coverage with no parameter detail.

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 specific verb ('List') and object ('Chrome tabs'), and delimits the scope with 'only ... permitted by the OpenClaw Selected Tabs access boundary,' clearly distinguishing this tool from the broader browser interaction siblings.

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 phrase 'only ... currently permitted by ... access boundary' gives an implicit when-to-use: when the agent needs to enumerate tabs within that boundary. It does not explicitly contrast with a sibling alternative, but the boundary condition provides clear usage guidance.

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