get_safari_tabs

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists all open tab URLs and titles, implying a read-only operation, but provides no additional context about limitations (e.g., private windows, permissions, or error behavior). The description is accurate but minimal, lacking any extra behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that conveys all essential information without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

This is a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description adequately explains what it returns (URLs and titles of open Safari tabs). While it doesn't specify the return format, the simplicity of the tool and the clarity of the description make it sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter information because none exists, so it fully aligns with the 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's function with a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('open tab URLs and titles in Safari'). It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling tools, which cover calendars, reminders, notes, music, email, and system operations.

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 a clear use case: retrieving current Safari tab information. There are no similar sibling tools that would create ambiguity, so explicit alternatives are unnecessary. The context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool when needing Safari tab data.

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