game_ui_tabs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'get/set current tab.' It does not explain side effects, return values, required scene state, or whether the target must already exist. The get/set distinction is already visible in the action schema, so the description adds little behavioral context.

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 short, front-loaded fragment with no unnecessary words, and the resource type appears first. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing operational detail. It earns a solid score for structure but not a top score because it omits relevant guidance.

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 four parameters, an action enum, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should provide more context about action-specific parameters and expected return behavior. 'get/set current tab' leaves the agent to infer how index, title, and action combine and what a successful call returns. This is insufficient for reliably invoking all action modes.

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 schema already documents nodePath, action, index, and title. The description reinforces the nodePath target with 'TabContainer/TabBar' and loosely maps to the set_current action, but adds no deeper semantics for the action values or how index and title relate to each action. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the target resource type (TabContainer/TabBar) and the main operations (get/set), which helps distinguish it from the many game_ui_* sibling tools. However, it says 'current tab' while the action enum also includes get_tabs and set_title, so it does not fully capture all supported actions. It is still specific and not a tautology.

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 only implies usage on tab containers and gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to choose get_tabs vs set_current vs set_title, or what nodePath should reference. There is no 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.