new_tab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful side effect: the new tab 'becomes active' (a focus change). It does not say whether the previous tab's state is preserved, whether the response yields a tab identifier, or anything about popup-blocking/permission behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words; the activation behavior is called out inline rather than buried.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it does not indicate what the call returns (e.g., an identifier usable with switch_tab/close_tab), which is the main missing piece for correct follow-up actions.

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 must compensate. 'Optionally loading url' correctly conveys that url is optional and what it does, but adds nothing about accepted format (absolute vs relative) or what loads when it is omitted.

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: 'Open a new tab' is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the siblings switch_tab, list_tabs, and close_tab, which deal with existing tabs. It stops short of naming or contrasting those siblings explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to open a new tab versus using switch_tab to reuse an existing one, or versus navigate. The use case is only implied by the verb; no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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