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, and it discloses nothing beyond the one-line purpose: return shape (ids? titles? urls?), ordering, whether background tabs are included, and the fact that it's a read-only operation are all unstated.

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 three-word, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is terse rather than bloated, though the terseness borders on underspecification.

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?

This is a trivial zero-required-parameter read tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, so minimal description is defensible. However, for a listing tool the shape of the returned list is the key unknown and is never addressed.

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% and the single parameter ('tab id, defaults to current') is already documented in the schema, so the description adds no parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List open tabs' tells an agent exactly what it does, and the verb distinguishes it from new_tab/switch_tab/close_tab. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the naming makes the distinction inferable.

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 on when to call this vs. switch_tab/new_tab/close_tab, and no note about whether the optional 'tab' argument is meaningful for a listing operation. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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