tab_select

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Select a tab') which implies a focus/activation operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like: whether this changes application focus, what happens if the tab doesn't exist, if there are permission requirements, or what the visual/UI effect is. The description is minimal beyond the basic action.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place by explaining parameter usage without redundancy. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains parameter purposes but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., need to identify tabs first), error conditions, or integration with sibling tools like tab_list. For a selection tool with no annotations, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: explains tab_id_or_index accepts 'Tab ID string, or a numeric index (0-based)' and window_id is for 'index-based selection' and can be 'Omit for the current window'. This clarifies parameter purposes beyond schema types. However, it doesn't explain where to get tab IDs (e.g., from tab_list) or window IDs.

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 action ('Select a tab') and the resource ('by its ID or numeric index'), providing specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tab_list, tab_close, and tab_move by focusing on selection rather than listing, closing, or moving tabs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tab_next/tab_prev which are also selection tools but with different mechanisms.

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 through parameter explanations: 'Omit for the current window' suggests when to leave window_id unspecified. It doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives like tab_next/tab_prev (sequential navigation) or tab_list (to discover tab IDs). No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are mentioned.

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