jump_to_tab_by_name

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

The annotations already mark this as destructiveHint=true, and the description clarifies exactly what changes: the active workspace tab. It does not describe side effects or consequences, but for a simple tab-switch action the core mutation target is stated.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a one-parameter action, though it could have added more structure by explicitly naming the parameter and its semantics.

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?

Given the low complexity, one required parameter, and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient for invocation. It lacks usage context and side-effect detail, but an agent can likely infer the intended call from the tool name and description.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the 'name' parameter. It does indicate that name is the destination tab, but it leaves out exact-match behavior, case sensitivity, or how the name maps to tabs. It partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 clear action ('switch the active workspace tab') and identifies the target parameter ('name'). Its by-name phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from jump_to_tab_by_space_type, though that differentiation is not explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling jump_to_tab_by_space_type implies the choice is name-based vs. space-type-based, but the description itself offers no selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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