chrome_focus

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does state the primary behavior: bringing a tab into focus in the browser UI. However, it does not mention side effects such as changing the active tab, potential window focus changes, error behavior for invalid tab IDs, or what the tool returns. For a mutating action, more disclosure would be helpful.

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 is a single clear sentence with the core action front-loaded and a parenthetical clarification. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema adequately defines what the tool does and where the tabId comes from. It is slightly incomplete because it does not specify behavior for invalid or stale tab IDs, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the single parameter tabId is described as 'Tab ID to bring into focus (from browser_tabs list)'. This already provides strong semantics. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so it earns the baseline 3 for relying on the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Bring'), a specific resource ('a specific Chrome tab'), and clarifies the outcome ('activate it in the browser UI'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like browser_navigate (which changes the page) and browser_tabs (which lists tabs).

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want to activate an already-open tab. The schema parameter description adds that tabId comes from browser_tabs list, which gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, when not to use it, or contrast with navigation tools.

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