browser_wake_tab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden well. It discloses that unloaded tabs have no live content script, that commands will hang or fail until reload, that the tool is idempotent, and that it waits for page load.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, followed by concise context, usage guidance, and a clear Args section. Every sentence adds useful information with no wasted repetition.

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 mutation-like operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough context: unload behavior, idempotency, reload semantics, and usage routing. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. It defines tab_id as the tab to wake and gives a concrete source for IDs ('get IDs from browser_tabs'), adding meaning beyond the bare integer schema.

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 and resource: reviving a tab discarded by Zen's Tab Unloader. It distinguishes the tool from sibling reload/keep-alive tools by explaining the unloaded-tab condition.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('before targeting a tab that might have been idle') and names the preferred alternative for repeated access ('browser_keep_alive'). It also points to browser_tabs for obtaining IDs.

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