browser_switch_tab

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing beyond the action itself. It does not say whether switching activates/loads the tab, what happens if the tab_id is invalid or the tab is closed, or whether it affects other tabs' state.

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?

Two short lines, action front-loaded in the first sentence, parameter detail after. No wasted prose, though the 'Args:' block adds little formatting value for a single self-evident integer parameter.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the minimum viable information (what it does and where the ID comes from) is present. It falls short on failure modes and on the observable effect of the switch, which an agent would need to sequence tab operations correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate and it partially does by stating the parameter is 'the tab ID to focus' and where to obtain it ('browser_tabs'). However, it adds nothing about ID validity, integer ranges, or how a tab ID differs from a window or tag reference.

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 ('Switch focus') and resource ('a specific browser tab'), which is enough to distinguish it from browser_new_tab, browser_close_tab, and element-level browser_focus. It is clear but does not explicitly name or contrast with the nearest siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent must infer that this is for making an already-open tab active. The one useful routing hint is the parenthetical 'get IDs from browser_tabs', which points at the prerequisite source of the ID but gives no when-not guidance.

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