Leapfrog MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the output structure (index, URL, title, active status) compensating for the missing output schema, and reveals the important behavioral trait that new tabs/popups are automatically tracked. It does not explicitly state read-only safety or error conditions, but the listing nature is clear.

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 contains three sentences that are all front-loaded with value: purpose declaration, output field disclosure, and behavioral tracking note. There is no redundant text, though the second sentence could arguably be slightly more compact.

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 this is a simple single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description appropriately compensates by detailing the return fields (index, URL, title, active) and explaining the auto-tracking behavior. It provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool and understand its results.

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% (sessionId is documented as 'Session ID'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional parameter context, but given the high schema coverage and the parameter's self-evident nature, no additional semantics are required.

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 explicitly states 'List all open tabs in a session' with a clear verb (list), resource (tabs), and scope (session). It further distinguishes itself from siblings like tab_close or tab_switch by specifying it 'Shows index, URL, title, and which tab is active'—clearly indicating this is a read-only inspection tool rather than a manipulation tool.

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 provides implied usage context by noting that 'New tabs (popups, OAuth windows) are automatically tracked,' suggesting when the tool is useful. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus tab_switch or session_list_profiles, or prerequisites for the sessionId parameter.

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