search_tabs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the search scope, fields, and ranking algorithm, but does not describe the output shape, no-match behavior, or case sensitivity. For a read-only search this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The scope is front-loaded, and the TF-IDF ranking detail is a compact, valuable addition.

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 core purpose and invocation are clear, and the tool is simple with only two parameters. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what a result contains or what happens with no matches, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 0%, so the description provides the only meaningful semantics for the query parameter: it searches title or URL. The limit parameter is not described, but its name plus the schema's default/min/max constraints make its purpose inferable.

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 ('search') and resource ('all open tabs'), and names the fields searched (title or URL) plus the ranking method (TF-IDF). This makes it easy to distinguish from history_search, bookmark_search, or generic search.

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 context is clear: use this when you need to find an open tab by title or URL. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'across all open tabs' scope provides adequate guidance.

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