window

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context (e.g., what happens when closing a tab, whether actions are reversible, or permission requirements). Since annotations already carry the safety signal, the description provides no extra value, scoring below the baseline.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single phrase. While it wastes no words, it is so minimal that it sacrifices informativeness. It could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness, but for its length it is appropriately sized.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not reference return values. The tool supports multiple actions with different parameter requirements, but the description offers no complete picture of when each action is appropriate. It is too sparse to be fully useful.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats the concept of tab management. No extra context for parameters like index or url is provided.

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 'Manage browser window tabs' is overly generic. It implies tab operations but does not specify which actions (close, list, open, switch) are supported, which are defined in the input schema. This weakens clarity and differentiation from sibling tools like 'open' and 'close' which might refer to other contexts.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not advise when to use this tool over alternatives like 'open' (which might open a URL in the current tab) or 'close' (which might close a dialog). There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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