tab_control

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral constraints: close is always explicit, never affects user-owned tabs, and never deletes the containing tab group. This adds value beyond the schema by highlighting safety semantics.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. The additional safety note about close is essential and earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and one important behavioral nuance (close safety). It omits edge-case handling or failure behavior, but the presence of an output schema compensates. Overall, it is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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% with both parameters clearly described in the input schema. The description adds marginal behavior context (e.g., session ownership, explicit close) but does not meaningfully enhance parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Focus, reload, or close') and a specific resource ('one tab owned by this Ghostlight session'). It lists all three actions and differentiates from sibling tools like tabs_create_mcp (creation) and tabs_context_mcp (context) by focusing on tab control rather than creation or context.

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 usage context by mentioning session-owned tabs and explicit close behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., tabs_create_mcp, tabs_context_mcp). It also lacks any 'when not to use' guidance.

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