switch_tab

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It details the side effect of making the switched tab the default target, the activation behavior and its default, prerequisites (tab must exist), and the return format. This is comprehensive coverage of all important runtime behaviors.

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 information-dense yet concise. Each sentence introduces a distinct piece of actionable context: effect on default target, activation foregrounding, prerequisites, return value, usage guidance, and alternative. No filler; the structure front-loads the core purpose.

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 state-changing tool with a side effect, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, activation defaults, return JSON, and use cases. It lacks only minor details like error handling, but those are not critical given the presence of prerequisites and return format. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it safely and 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal extra value for parameters, only reasserting the 'activate' default. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 verb 'switches' and resource 'active default tab' with a specific scope. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like open_tab and list_tabs by emphasizing the 'default' target behavior, so an agent can immediately understand its unique role.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('before interacting with a different page without repeating tab_id') and provides the alternative ('pass tab_id directly on an individual tool call'), including a clear condition for choosing the alternative. This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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