target

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core actions and does not mention side effects (e.g., switching the active target affects subsequent commands), output format, or any requirements like an active Chrome connection. This is a significant gap for a tool that can mutate state.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the key verbs and resource, making it quick to parse. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too brief to be contextually complete. It does not explain return values, how to choose between list and switch, or any dependencies (e.g., needing a prior connection). The high-level overview leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any additional parameter-level context, such as how 'url', 'index', and 'title' interact for the 'switch' action. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List or switch browser targets (pages, workers).' It uses specific verbs (list, switch) and identifies the resource (browser targets), with a parenthetical that clarifies the scope (pages, workers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'navigate' or 'query_elements' which target different aspects of browser interaction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply lists the two actions without explaining contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention that switching requires an existing connection or how this tool relates to sibling tools like 'chrome_switch_connection'.

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