browser_switch_tab

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the intended action but does not disclose what happens with an invalid tab_id, whether the browser window is brought to focus, whether the switch triggers navigation or reloads, or what the return behavior is. An agent has limited ability to predict side effects.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the necessary source for the required parameter follows immediately.

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 single-parameter tool with a fully described input schema, the description provides enough to make the call: what to do and where to get the ID. It could be improved by noting error behavior or return value, but the essential contextual requirements are covered.

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 tab_id as 'Tab ID to activate', and the description adds valuable provenance by telling the agent exactly where to get valid IDs. This extra context makes the parameter more actionable than 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 clearly states the action ('Switch') and the resource ('a specific browser tab'), along with the key requirement ('by ID'). This is distinct from sibling tools like browser_close_tab or browser_navigate, so the tool's purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells the agent where to obtain valid tab IDs: browser_list_tabs or browser_get_new_tab. This establishes a clear precondition for use. It does not explicitly call out when not to use the tool or compare it against alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough.

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