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 safety burden. 'List' and 'Shows' imply a read-only operation, and the group names/colors detail signals the kind of output, but the description never explicitly states that it has no side effects or what it returns beyond groups/colors.

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, no filler, front-loaded action and scope. Every clause adds useful 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 read-only listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is slightly incomplete: it tells callers they will see tab group names/colors but not the full return shape (e.g., tab IDs, titles, URLs) that would let them chain into browser_switch_tab or browser_close_tab. Still, the operation is simple and the core behavior is clear.

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 schema already documents workspace and all_workspaces at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'active workspace' default, clarifying how the optional workspace parameter behaves relative to all_workspaces.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tabs'), specifies workspace scoping ('active workspace (or all workspaces)'), and adds a concrete output detail (Chrome tab group names/colors). No sibling tool claims the same listing function, so an agent can distinguish it readily.

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 gives clear context: by default it targets the active workspace, and callers can opt into all_workspaces. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but there is no sibling tab-listing tool to confuse it with; switching and closing tabs are clearly different operations.

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