Dock tabs

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it explains the held_by field values ('you', another agent, null), that acting on a tab another agent holds fails as busy, and that the hold expires after 10 idle minutes. This concurrency and locking behavior is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first clause, then adds the scope and locking semantics. Every sentence carries information; slightly dense and packed with parentheticals, but nothing is wasted.

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 output schema and no annotations on return shape, the description usefully explains the held_by field and the busy/expiry rules. It stops short of describing the full response shape (e.g. which tab fields come back), but is otherwise complete for a simple list tool.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description instead spends its words on return-value semantics, which is the right allocation for a zero-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?

States a specific verb+resource ("List the tabs agents may use") and scopes the resource precisely to the 'NAVIG agents' tab group. Clear on what it returns, but never names or distinguishes it from the sibling cdp_tabs, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Implies usage by describing what the tab group contains and what held_by means, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or pointers to alternatives like dock_status or cdp_tabs. The agent must infer when this is the right tool.

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