get_tabs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the persistence of tab IDs and output format, but does not cover potential limitations such as browser state dependencies, error conditions, or performance implications. It adequately describes core behavior but lacks depth on operational constraints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential details about tab IDs and output format. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical information without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, output details, and usage guidance. However, it could slightly improve by mentioning any prerequisites (e.g., browser must be open) or error handling, which holds it back from a perfect score.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics, explaining the structure of tab data (display format and Tab ID) and usage guidance for the IDs. This adds value beyond the empty schema, warranting a score above the baseline of 3.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all open tabs from Google Chrome browser'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on retrieval rather than activation or closure. It specifies the scope ('all open tabs') and key output details (unique tab IDs, display format).

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 clear context for usage by emphasizing that Tab IDs should be used for reliable operations, which implicitly guides when to use this tool (to obtain IDs for sibling tools like activate_tab_by_id). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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