browser_get_tab_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical '[Disabled]' status upfront and lists the specific data points returned (loading status, favicon, incognito mode). However, it omits other behavioral details like error conditions (e.g., invalid tabId), whether the tab must be fully loaded, or permission requirements.

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 consists of exactly two sentences with zero redundancy. It front-loads the operational status ('[Disabled]') and primary action in the first sentence, then provides the prerequisite workflow in the second. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately compensates by enumerating the specific fields returned (URL, title, favicon, etc.). However, for a browser automation tool, it could benefit from mentioning error handling (e.g., tab not found) or timing considerations regarding page loading states.

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?

While the schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'tabId' parameter (describing it as 'Tab ID to get information for'), the description adds valuable semantic context by specifying to 'Use browser_list_tabs to find tab IDs.' This cross-reference helps the agent understand the data dependency and how to source the parameter value.

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 'Get[s] detailed information about a specific browser tab' and specifically enumerates the attributes retrieved (loading status, URL, title, favicon URL, active/incognito status). This distinguishes it from siblings like browser_get_tab_content (which returns page content) or browser_list_tabs (which returns tab IDs only). The '[Disabled]' prefix, while unusual, clearly signals the tool's operational status.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite workflow: 'Use browser_list_tabs to find tab IDs,' providing clear guidance on how to obtain the required parameter. While it lacks explicit 'when not to use' language, the specific enumeration of returned fields (metadata vs. content) implicitly guides selection against similar tools.

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