tab_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds only the scoping note and does not contradict anything, but contributes no additional behavioral context such as ordering, completeness of results, or pagination.

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?

A single clause with zero filler, with the scope qualifier front-loaded right after the verb. Nothing in it is 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, and the annotations cover safety semantics. The remaining gap is minor: for a listing tool the agent still cannot tell whether omitting workspace_id returns tabs across all workspaces and in what order.

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 0% for workspace_id (only a bare title and null default), so the description is the sole source of meaning — and it does clarify that the parameter is an optional scope filter rather than a required selector. However, it says nothing about identifier format, null behavior, or what happens when it is omitted, leaving real ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("List tabs") and adds an optional scope qualifier ("within one workspace"), which lets an agent distinguish it from mutating siblings like tab_create, tab_close, or tab_focus. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

"Optionally within one workspace" implies the two usage modes (global listing vs. workspace-scoped listing) but does not say when to prefer one over the other, nor does it mention alternatives such as workspace_list for enumerating workspaces first. Guidance is inferable but not explicit.

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