switch_page

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It lacks details on side effects (e.g., unsaved changes), required permissions, or whether the tool is read-only or destructive. With no annotations, the description should carry this burden but fails to do so.

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 very concise (one sentence) but lacks structure. While it front-loads the action, it omits necessary details that could be added without significant lengthening. It feels under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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 tool's simplicity, the description still fails to provide enough context. It does not differentiate from the sibling 'navigate' tool, nor does it mention the absence of a return value. The single parameter is left entirely unspecified.

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 explain parameter semantics. It does not clarify the expected format of 'page_id' (e.g., numeric ID, string name) or how to obtain valid values. The parameter is entirely dependent on external knowledge.

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 verb 'switch' and resource 'page', and specifies the scope 'in current application'. It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'navigate' (which may involve external URLs) and 'create_pages' (which creates rather than switches).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'navigate' or 'refresh_page'). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the page existing or how to obtain valid page IDs.

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