navvi_tab

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that 'new' switches to the new tab and that closing the last tab is forbidden, but it does not describe behavior for invalid handles, error handling, or the structure of the output (beyond listing 'handle, url, and title' for list action).

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 concise and uses a list format for readability. However, it could be slightly more organized (e.g., grouping parameters per action). It front-loads the verb 'Manage' and then lists actions.

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 manages four actions with four parameters, the description covers the main use cases and key constraints (no last tab close, new tab switches). An output schema exists but is not described; return values for list are hinted. The description is sufficient 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so description must compensate. It explains that 'action' is one of four values, 'handle' is for switch/close, 'url' is for new, and 'persona' is likely a context parameter. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Manage browser tabs within a persona' and enumerates four specific actions (list, new, switch, close) with brief explanations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like navvi_browse or navvi_open.

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 implicitly tells when to use each action (e.g., 'list all open tabs', 'open a new tab (optionally navigate to url)', 'switch to a tab by handle', 'close a tab by handle'). It also provides a constraint: 'cannot close the last tab'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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