switch_tab

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

With only a title annotation (no readOnly/destructive hints), the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the action ('Switch the MCP connection') and gives a prerequisite, but it does not explicitly describe the effect on subsequent commands, error behavior, or reversibility. This is a moderate level of transparency, sufficient for a simple state-changing tool.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes a practical usage hint. Every sentence 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?

The tool has a single parameter and an output schema (not detailed here). The description explains what the tool does and the prerequisite for the parameter, which is adequate for a simple switching tool. It could mention the persistent effect on subsequent MCP calls, but 'Switch the MCP connection' sufficiently implies that. Overall, it is complete for this complexity.

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%: the parameter targetId is described as 'Target ID from list_tabs.' The tool description reinforces this by saying 'Use list_tabs first to get available targetIds.' The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Switch the MCP connection to a specific Chrome tab.' This uses a specific verb ('switch') and resource ('Chrome tab'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like list_tabs (listing) and get_url (reading). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use list_tabs first to get available targetIds.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and what prerequisite to satisfy. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple switching operation the context is clear.

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