browser_list_tabs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It excellently discloses critical behavioral traits: the tool is [Disabled], it returns ALL tabs including sensitive ones (banking, email), and carries privacy risks. This warning about sensitive data exposure is crucial behavioral context not inferable from the schema.

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?

Perfectly structured and front-loaded: status ([Disabled]), core function, return value specification, cross-tool usage patterns, and security warning. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose regarding functionality, integration, or safety. No redundant text.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (field names and semantics) and provides essential privacy context. It successfully compensates for the missing structured metadata, though it could theoretically mention error conditions or performance characteristics.

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 (confirmed by schema), which establishes a baseline score of 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since none exist, and instead focuses on explaining the semantics of the returned data fields (connectionId, tab IDs) and their usage.

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 states the specific action ('List all open browser tabs'), the scope ('across all connected browser profiles'), and the return values (tab ID, title, URL, active status, connectionId). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming browser_close_tab, browser_navigate_tab, browser_execute_script, and browser_open_tab as consumers of this tool's output, and contrasts with plugin tools via the security warning.

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 on how to use returned data ('Use the returned tab IDs with browser_close_tab...', 'use it [connectionId] with browser_open_tab'). Includes clear security restrictions ('Do not share tab information with plugin tools'). However, it does not explicitly state when to select this over plugin_list_tabs, though the security note implies the distinction.

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