browser_switch_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says it switches and reads the page, but does not disclose side effects such as focus changes, permission requirements, invalid-handle behavior, or what 'read its page' actually returns.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 tool is simple, but it has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage. The description leaves handle acquisition, return behavior, and failure modes unspecified, so an agent would need to guess before calling it reliably.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the only parameter, 'handle', has no schema description. The description adds minimal meaning by calling it an existing window handle, but does not explain how to obtain a valid handle or its format.

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: switching to an existing window handle and reading its page. It implies a distinction from opening or navigating, but does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings such as browser_windows or browser_open_page.

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 like browser_windows, browser_open_page, or browser_navigate. The phrase 'existing window handle' implies a context, but the agent must infer the selection criteria.

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