tabs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does indicate this is a read of existing tab state by enumerating index/title/url/visibility. It does not state whether the list is ordered, whether it is scoped to a single window, or whether hidden/background tabs are included, which are the behavioral details that matter here.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the returned fields are both stated without redundancy or padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with zero parameters there is little that must be documented. The remaining gap is disambiguation from snapshot/browser_status, which an agent selecting among the browser-inspection siblings would need.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds nothing that is needed beyond that.

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 open tabs in the ochi browser') and even enumerates the returned fields (index, title, url, visible), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as snapshot, browser_status, or list_extractors, which also describe browser state.

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 statement of when to call this versus browser_status, snapshot, or look when the agent needs to inspect the browser. Usage is only inferable from the name and the listed fields, not from any explicit guidance or exclusions.

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