manage_tabs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does so effectively by explaining that clicking links may open new tabs, that tab indexes are session-scoped, and that indexes may change after tabs are opened or closed. It could go slightly further by noting the destructive nature of close_active, but the action name is clear and the context provided is solid.

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 somewhat long but appropriately structured: an opening summary, a short routing note, a parameter guide, and essential notes. Each section adds value, though the second sentence ('Use this tool for tab management') is mildly redundant with the first.

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 tool with four parameters, five actions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers nearly everything needed: parameter meanings, return content for 'list', and caveats about tab index stability. It does not describe output/return behavior for non-list actions, but that is less critical given the action-oriented nature of the tool.

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 fully compensate. It does: every parameter is explained in context — action's enum values are individually clarified, url is tied to 'open', tab_index is tied to 'list' and 'switch', and switch_to is defined for the 'open' action. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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 names multiple specific verbs ('list, open, switch between, or close') tied to a clear resource ('browser tabs'), so an agent immediately knows the tool's scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools navigate and navigate_history, which removes ambiguity at a glance.

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 states explicitly that navigation within the current tab belongs to navigate and navigate_history, and that tab management should go here. It also instructs the agent to call 'list' before 'switch' when a tab_index is needed, giving concrete procedural guidance for correct invocation.

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