select_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing. It hints that the selection persists across future calls but does not say whether the call has side effects, what happens when bringToFront is omitted, how an invalid pageId is handled, or whether the context is scoped to the session.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the operative effect is placed at the end so the verb+resource leads. It is efficient, though perhaps too terse for the amount of behavior it leaves unexplained.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only half the parameters documented, the description should do more work than this one sentence. It omits how to source the required pageId and the default/omission behavior of bringToFront, leaving the agent under-equipped to call the tool reliably.

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 only 50%: bringToFront is documented inline, but pageId has no description and the tool description never explains where the required ID comes from (presumably list_pages) or its type/expectations. The description therefore fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource ('Select a page') and states the effect ('as a context for future tool calls'), so an agent understands this is a state-setting operation rather than a page creation or navigation. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from siblings like list_pages, new_page, or close_page, so the agent must infer the boundary from the single verb.

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 phrase 'as a context for future tool calls' implicitly signals when the tool is relevant (before acting on a specific page), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g., obtaining pageId from list_pages), and no named alternatives such as list_pages or new_page. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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