extract_tab

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it uses the same chunk-and-merge extractor as `extract` and works on a live tab. However, it does not detail potential side effects, rate limits, or what happens if the tab changes, which would improve transparency.

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 concise with two well-organized paragraphs: first the main purpose and usage, then parameter and return details. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 description covers the tool's behavior, parameters, return format, and distinguishes it from siblings. It could mention that the tab must already be open, but that is implied. Given the low complexity and presence of an output schema, it is fairly 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?

The description explains both parameters: tab_id is a handle from open_tab, and schema is a JSON Schema same as for `extract`. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema (which has no descriptions), especially given 0% schema coverage. The explanation is sufficient but could include examples.

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 extracts structured data from the current tab using a JSON Schema, distinguishing it from the sibling `extract` tool which opens a URL. The verb 'extract' and resource 'tab' are specific.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'for named fields on a page you have navigated or interacted your way to', contrasting with `extract`. It provides clear context but lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' or alternative tools beyond the implicit comparison.

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