switch_tab

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('switch') but does not disclose consequences such as what happens to the current tab, whether the operation is reversible, or error behavior for invalid indices. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.

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. Every word earns its place, and the parenthetical pointer to `tabs` is an efficient way to link related tooling.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is moderately complete. However, with no annotations, it should at least note that it changes browser state and handle out-of-range indices or return values. The current description covers the basic action but leaves behavioral edge cases unaddressed; a 3 reflects this minimal-but-clear coverage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by index' and directs the agent to `tabs`, which helps infer the parameter's source, but it does not explain the indexing scheme (0-based, bounds, type semantics beyond schema). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name and type.

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 ('Switch') and resource ('active tab') and clearly indicates the mechanism ('by index'). It also references the sibling tool `tabs`, which tells the agent where to obtain valid indices. This distinguishes it from related tab tools like new_tab, close_tab, and navigate.

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 implies the workflow: use `tabs` to get indices, then switch by index. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions (e.g., limitations with multiple windows). The guidance is present but implicit, so it's adequate but not thorough.

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