browser_tabs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool only returns HTTPS tabs that were explicitly shared, and warns against fabricating IDs. It does not mention side effects or return format, but the behavior is well-specified for a read operation.

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, no waste. The main action ('List only HTTPS tabs...') is front-loaded. Every phrase adds value, and the structure is minimal yet complete.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: what is listed, constraints, and ordering. Lacking return format specification is a minor gap, but the tool's simplicity mitigates this.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds context about the tool's purpose but cannot add parameter semantics. Baseline is 4, as there is no need for parameter details.

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 tool lists only HTTPS tabs explicitly shared via a specific extension, with a strong focus on distinguishing from sibling tools by specifying constraints like 'HTTPS' and 'explicitly shared'. It also includes a clear directive about not inferring or fabricating a collaboration ID.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Call this first' and 'never infer or fabricate a collaboration ID.' While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is the tab-listing tool. The instruction is actionable and sets clear boundaries.

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