browser_tabs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add a useful behavior beyond the schema: negative steps move backwards. However, it does not explain boundary behavior (e.g., wrap-around at the first/last tab), what state changes occur, or whether the command activates or merely cycles focus.

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 with no filler. It states the operation, the resource, and the critical parameter nuance in as few words as possible.

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 very simple one-parameter tool, the description is mostly adequate, but it still leaves gaps: no mention of what 'browser tabs' refers to in this environment, no boundary behavior, and no relationship to the browser_navigate/browser_select family. It is minimally viable but not fully self-contained.

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%, so the description must compensate for the otherwise bare 'steps' integer. It provides the key semantic that negative values reverse direction, and the word 'steps' implies the unit is tab positions. This is meaningful added meaning for a single-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Cycle browser tabs') and adds directionality, making the operation unambiguous. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling browser tools like browser_navigate or browser_select, which operate on navigation/selection rather than cycling 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the closely related browser_focused, browser_navigate, or browser_select tools. An agent is not told whether this is the right choice for switching between open browser tabs or how it fits into a broader browser workflow.

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