browser_tabs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that tabId is returned and can be used to target a tab 'without switching', and it lists close as a supported operation, conveying that the tool can mutate state. However, it does not mention the effects of switching (active tab change), the finality of close, or the behavior of the 'done' action, which are meaningful behavioral traits for an agent to know.

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 with no filler. The primary capabilities are front-loaded, and the most important cross-tool behavior — using tabId to target tabs without switching — is stated clearly and economically.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, the return value, and the key cross-tool usage pattern. The schema is rich and documents all parameters including agentId and the 'done' action, so the description does not need to repeat those details. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning index as an alternative to tabId, but the schema already handles that.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value by explaining that tabId returned from list output can be passed to other tools to target a specific tab without switching. This connects the parameter to its cross-tool usage, which is not fully conveyed by the schema alone.

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 names a specific resource ('browser tabs') and four concrete verbs ('List, create, close, or switch'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. This distinguishes it from page-level navigation siblings like browser_navigate and browser_reload, which operate within a single tab rather than managing tabs themselves.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is for tab-level operations and explains how the returned tabId can be used with other tools, which gives the agent practical routing guidance. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when to prefer browser_tabs over chrome_windows or browser_navigate, but the operation list implies the appropriate context.

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