browser_switch_tab

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not disclose side effects, such as whether the current tab's state is preserved, whether the switch is immediate, or any potential errors (e.g., invalid index). This is a significant gap for a tool that changes browser state.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the parameter source. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description is mostly adequate. However, the lack of behavioral details (e.g., error handling, index base) and no annotations mean an agent might not know how to handle edge cases. The reference to `browser_tabs` helps, but the description could be more complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that `index` refers to the tab index from `browser_tabs`, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not specify the index base (0-based vs 1-based) or what happens if the index is out of range, leaving some 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 clearly states the action ('Make another tab the active one') and the resource (browser tab), with a specific mechanism (by index from `browser_tabs`). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_open and browser_tabs by focusing on switching among existing tabs rather than opening or listing them.

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 usage: use this when you need to change the active tab, and it references `browser_tabs` as the source for the index. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like browser_open for creating a new tab, leaving some room for inference.

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