get_tabs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail: closed tabs resurface once in closed_session_tabs with a reason enum (closed, window_closed, replaced, closed_by_bridge). That is return-behavior context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with the primary listing behavior front-loaded and no filler. The final sentence is dense with enumerated reasons but each clause is informative rather than redundant.

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?

For a read-only, single-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, the parameter's effect and trigger, and the closed-tab edge case. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents include_windows. The description adds value by reframing the returned window fields as 'position, size, state and type' and attaching the actionable rationale ('needed before moving or tiling'), which is more than the schema's terse 'bounds, state, type and tab count'.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every open tab'), then enumerates the exact fields returned (id, url, title, active flag, mine). It also distinguishes its role from generic page tools by naming the tab_id lookup use case, so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use rule ('Find a tab_id when the implicit target is not the one you mean') and a conditional trigger for the parameter ('include_windows ... needed before moving or tiling'). It stops short of naming the alternative siblings (move_tab, tile_windows) explicitly, so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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