Watch Chrome tab events

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool long-polls, which implies blocking behavior, and lists the event types. However, it does not explain timeout behavior, return format, whether events are consumed or persistent, or what 'after a cursor' precisely means. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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, front-loaded sentence that captures the essential action without padding. It is concise and to the point, though the phrase 'after a cursor' could be clearer. It earns its place and does not include unnecessary details.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe the response format, how to use the returned cursor, what happens on timeout, or whether events are delivered only once. Given the tool's complexity (long-polling) and lack of structured metadata, more detail is needed for reliable invocation.

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 coverage is only 33% (only tabId has a description). The phrase 'after a cursor' adds meaning to the afterSequence parameter, but timeoutMs (which has a default and max) is left unexplained. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap but does not fully clarify all three parameters.

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 action: 'Long-poll tab created, updated, removed, and activated events after a cursor.' It uses a specific verb ('long-poll') and identifies the resource (tab events) with precise event types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_list_tabs (which lists current state) and browser_network_poll (which monitors network events).

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 implies the use case: to watch for tab lifecycle events over time. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The intended scenario is inferable but not stated clearly.

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