browser_tabs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the behavioral transparency burden. It adds a useful non-obvious behavior—clicks may open a second tab on employer ATS sites—but it does not describe how open tabs are represented or whether the active tab is indicated. The output schema may cover return details, but the description itself adds only limited behavioral context.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a practical caveat about ATS sites without redundancy.

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 zero-argument listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential action and a relevant edge case. It is nearly complete, though the timing of when to call it relative to other browser tools is left implicit.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies, and no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('open tabs'), making the tool's core function immediately understandable. It is distinct from sibling tools like browser_switch_tab or browser_open, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself by naming an alternative.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_state or browser_switch_tab. The ATS note hints that it may be useful after a click, but the description leaves the usage context largely implied.

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