tab_switch

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

The description conveys the core state-changing behavior (switching the active tab) and the 0-based indexing convention, which is non-obvious. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not disclose return behavior or what happens on an out-of-range index, so transparency is only minimally adequate.

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 states action, target, and indexing convention with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter action with no output schema, the definition supplies the necessary invocation details: what to switch, how to identify the tab, and how the index is counted. It is complete enough for an agent that can obtain the index from tab_list, and the sibling context covers the rest.

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 schema documents the only parameter, index, and the description adds the crucial detail that it is 0-based, which is not present in the schema property description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description goes beyond the schema by clarifying indexing semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Switches') with a clear resource ('tab') and the selection criterion (index), making the operation unambiguous. It is easily distinguished from siblings like tab_open, tab_close, and tab_list, which have different verbs and effects.

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 implies the tool is for activating an existing tab by index, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over tab_open/tab_close. The schema's 'see tab_list' hint provides some guidance, but the description itself lacks explicit when-to-use or alternative routing.

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