browse_tabs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. A 'List' verb implies a safe, non-mutating read with no side effects, which is useful, but it doesn't explicitly confirm read-only behavior or note anything about the scope of tabs (e.g., window vs all) being enumerated.

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 efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and the key return fields. Nothing needs to be trimmed or reordered.

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-parameter listing tool with an output schema covering return values, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't connect this listing to the tab-switching workflow it enables.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies since no parameter semantics are 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?

States a specific verb 'List' plus resource 'open tabs' and the exact fields returned (url/title, active one). The listing verb naturally separates it from siblings like browse_switch_tab and browse_open without opening any schema.

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 is purely declarative and offers no when-to-use or when-not guidance. It never references siblings such as browse_switch_tab (likely the natural follow-up) or browse_open, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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