boj_browser_tabs

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 mentions three operations but doesn't describe their effects (e.g., whether 'create' opens in background/foreground, if 'close' requires confirmation, or if 'list' returns tab metadata). For a tool with potential side effects (create/close), this lack of detail is a significant gap, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 extremely concise (four words) and front-loaded with all key information. Every word earns its place by specifying the core operations. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient for quick understanding.

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's complexity (three distinct operations with side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, error conditions, or return values (e.g., what 'list' outputs). For a multi-operation tool, this minimal description leaves too much undefined for effective agent use.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100% (each parameter has a description), the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., 'url' is only for 'create', 'tab_id' for 'close') or provide examples, so it doesn't compensate for potential schema gaps.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs (list, create, close) and resource (browser tabs). It distinguishes itself from sibling browser tools like 'boj_browser_navigate' or 'boj_browser_read_page' by focusing on tab management rather than page interactions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from non-browser siblings, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., browser context), exclusions (e.g., when other browser tools might be more appropriate), or comparisons with siblings like 'boj_browser_navigate' for URL handling. Usage is implied through the operation list but not explicitly stated.

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