get_browser_tabs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that titles and URLs come from web pages, warns the data is untrusted, and advises not to follow instructions in it. This is a valuable behavioral note beyond the simple 'list' action. It doesn't mention failure modes (e.g., missing permission), but the permission requirement is stated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return details, followed by a permission note and a security warning. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains exactly what is returned (tab title, URL, active flag). It covers permission requirements and the untrusted-data caveat. For a read-only tool, this is complete and leaves no critical ambiguity for the agent.

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 only parameter (browser) is fully described in the schema, including the auto-detect behavior. The tool description repeats this in the schema's description, so it adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 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 action (list) and resource (open tabs in Safari, Chrome, or Arc), and specifies the returned data (title, URL, active status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_app or manage_windows, which are about actions, not reading tab data.

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?

It states a clear prerequisite (Requires Automation permission for the browser) and implies the tool is for querying tabs rather than modifying them. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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