list_user_tabs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses ordering ('newest first'), scope ('across windows'), and authenticity ('real open Chrome tabs'), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a safe read operation, latency implications, or whether it could trigger any tab-querying side effects.

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, zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by a practical usage pointer. Every clause carries meaning.

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 is reasonably complete: it states what is returned (real tabs, newest first, cross-windows), how to act on results (id with claim_tab), and the tool's role in the workflow. It could name the sibling list_tabs explicitly to clarify the distinction, but the 'real' qualifier and claim_tab guidance offer enough context.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the schema. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics (real tabs, ordering, cross-window), which is the primary semantic content the agent needs. Baseline 4 applies for 0-param tools.

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 verb ('List'), resource ('user's real open Chrome tabs'), and scope ('across windows', 'newest first'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'real' open tabs (vs list_tabs which may be a generic abstraction) and noting cross-window coverage.

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 gives a clear usage pointer ('Use an entry's id with claim_tab to take control'), indicating the tab listing is a precursor to claiming. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish when to use this vs list_tabs, nor does it state any exclusions or alternate contexts.

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