view_tabs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does describe the output scope (all tabs) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose behaviors such as default truncation of breadcrumbs/stacktrace frames, potential absence of tabs, or any performance implications. The schema descriptions cover some of this, but the description itself adds limited behavioral context beyond the factual listing of tabs.

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, clearly worded sentence that front-loads the action ('View') and resource, then lists the tabs. There is zero waste and no redundant content.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, so the description should help the agent understand what the tool returns and when to use it. The tab list is helpful, but the description omits details about the combined response structure, whether all tabs are always present, and how optional parameters affect the output. It is adequate for basic selection but not fully complete for a complex multi-tab viewer.

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% (every parameter has a clear description), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds value by linking tabs to parameters (e.g., breadcrumbs, stacktrace, include_code), but it does not explain parameter formats or defaults beyond what the schema already provides. This is a standard case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('View') and resource ('all event data tabs') and enumerates the included tabs (app, device, user, request, breadcrumbs, metadata, stacktrace), making it clear what this tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like view_stacktrace (which focuses on one tab) and view_event by offering a comprehensive multi-tab view.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like view_event, view_stacktrace, or view_latest_event. It only describes what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tab list. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over a narrower tool.

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