safari_list_tabs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the tool lists all tabs across all windows with specific fields, implying read-only, non-destructive behavior. This is transparent and adds context beyond the schema, though it could mention if any side effects exist (e.g., focusing windows).

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, front-loaded sentence of 15 words that efficiently communicates the core functionality. No unnecessary words or repetition, earning its place.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers the essential behavior: scope ('every open tab across all Safari windows') and contents (title, URL, active status). It could optionally mention ordering or window details, but is complete enough for agents.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to add parameter details; the baseline for zero params is 4. It adds no extra parameter meaning but is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('lists') and resource ('every open tab across all Safari windows') and specifies returned fields (title, URL, active status). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like safari_search_tabs (which searches tabs) and chrome_list_tabs (which lists Chrome tabs).

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 (e.g., safari_search_tabs, chrome_list_tabs). It does not mention exclusions or context for preferred use, leaving the agent to infer from tool name alone.

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