switch_tab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the URL prefix requirement, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention side effects such as closing other pages or the result/return value, which could be expected for a navigation action.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that includes the core action and a key constraint. Every word contributes value, 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, the description is sufficient: it states the purpose and the critical URL format. It does not mention output or side effects, but given the simplicity of the action and lack of output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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% (url has a description), so baseline is 3. The description adds the constraint that url must start with '/', which is not present in the schema's parameter description. This additional semantic guidance elevates the score to 4.

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: "切换到 tabBar 页面" (switch to tabBar page), with a specific resource type (tabBar page) and a scope constraint (URL must start with /). This distinguishes it from sibling navigation tools like navigate_to and redirect_to, which are for non-tabBar pages.

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 usage: it is for switching to tabBar pages, and it provides a critical format constraint (url starts with /). However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or contrast with alternatives like navigate_to or re_launch, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling context.

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