Switch window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions polling behavior via timeoutMs parameter but does not state if switching is destructive, if it requires a window to exist, what happens if the window is closed, or any state changes. The description does not disclose potential side effects or preconditions.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds specific usage hints. It could potentially omit 'or popup' as redundant with 'window', but overall concise.

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 3 unrequired parameters, no output schema, no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and usage hints. However, it lacks details on return values, error scenarios (e.g., window not found), or behavior when switching to a window that fails to load.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the 'target' parameter (use after action that opens window) and 'index' (zero-based position), but the timeoutMs parameter meaning is already clear from schema. No additional semantic value beyond 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 clearly states the tool switches to another browser window or popup, specifying the verb 'switch' and the resource 'browser window or popup'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_start, browser_close, and navigate by focusing on window selection rather than creation, closure, or navigation.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: after an action that opens a window, use target 'newest', or use index to select by position. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating this is for window focus rather than content navigation or page interaction.

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