OpenTabs

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It effectively discloses: operational status ('[Disabled]'), aggregation behavior ('merged from all profiles'), sorting ('newest-first'), entry annotation ('connectionId'), and content types included. Does not mention rate limits or auth requirements, but covers the critical behavioral traits.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: disabled status and primary action, return format details, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with critical operational status '[Disabled]' and core function.

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 4-parameter log retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return value structure (merged entries, sorting, annotation) and use cases. The '[Disabled]' status is crucial completeness information. Could optionally describe entry fields beyond connectionId, but sufficient for agent selection.

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic mapping by associating 'background script and offscreen document' with the source parameter values and 'error messages' with the level parameter, but does not add format constraints or usage examples beyond the schema definitions.

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 specific verbs ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource (internal logs from the OpenTabs Chrome extension, specifically background script and offscreen document). It distinguishes from sibling browser_get_console_logs by specifying 'internal' extension logs vs browser console logs, and explicitly notes the '[Disabled]' status upfront.

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 clear usage context ('Use this to see error messages, WebSocket events, and plugin injection warnings without opening DevTools'), establishing when to use the tool for debugging convenience. Distinguishes implicitly from browser_get_console_logs via 'internal logs' scope, though could explicitly name the alternative for clarity.

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