style_tabs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'list page tabs' with no information about return format, side effects, or required state. This leaves significant ambiguity about what the tool actually returns or how it behaves.

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 concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without any extra fluff. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a zero-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?

Despite its simplicity, the description is incomplete because it lacks information about the output or expected behavior. There is no output schema to compensate, and the description does not clarify what 'tabs' means in this context or what a user should expect from the tool.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema already covers this fully. The description adds no parameter semantics, but with no parameters to describe, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('列出' / list) and resource ('调试 Chrome 中的页面标签' / page tabs in debugging Chrome). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which mention tabs, so it uniquely identifies the tool's function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what the tool does without mentioning context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools exist but no comparison is given.

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