Open named page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool can create a new page or reuse an existing named page, and returns url/title. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the page is focused or brought to front), or behavior when name already exists (does it update or return existing?). For a tool with six parameters and no annotations, more behavioral details would be beneficial.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential functionality with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. Despite having room to add more detail, the conciseness is a strength.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 params, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior (get/create/attach, return url/title) and mentions a sibling (list_pages). It lacks details about error cases, default values from schema, or how it integrates with other tools, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the primary function.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage examples beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., relationship between 'name' and 'targetId', or when to use 'connect'). While this is acceptable, it does not exceed the baseline.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to get, create, or attach to a named page or tab, returning url/title. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_pages (lists tabs) and close_page (closes). The verb-resource pair is specific and the three modes are well articulated.

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 usage context: it mentions using targetId from list_pages as an alternative for attaching to a tab, and implies this tool is needed before navigating or interacting with a page. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if you only need a list, use list_pages) or contrast with other sibling tools like goto. Still, the guidance is clear enough for an agent.

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