Switch tab

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says almost nothing: no mention of what happens on an invalid tab_id, whether the OS window is focused, whether the tab is restored or only made active, or whether it errors. Only the bare effect ('to the front') is stated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and the parameter provenance are both packed in without waste.

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 is simple (one required param, no output schema, no annotations), so a short description is defensible. Still, for a state-changing view operation it should at least say what a success looks like and what occurs when the id no longer exists.

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 0% and the schema gives only a bare string with no format, so the description nominally does add value by naming browser_tabs as the source of the tab_id. But it does not describe the expected id format or whether ids are stable across sessions, leaving a real gap.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Bring a tab ... to the front') and clarifies the identifier provenance ('id from browser_tabs'), which separates it from the sibling browser_tabs that lists tabs. It does not, however, contrast itself with other navigation siblings like browser_navigate or browser_open.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer it should call this after identifying a tab via browser_tabs. There is no explicit when-to-use, no conditions under which switching is needed, and no note about behavior when the tab is already active or the id is stale.

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