switch_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that the tool opens the form, replays the genuine setup from 'capture', sends a real page-switch command, and returns {base_page, target_page, accepted}. It also flags the important limitation that a page switch has no value read-back, which is exactly the kind of behavioral trait an agent needs.

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?

Reasonably sized at two sentences, but the nested parentheticals and internal jargon ('replays the genuine setup from capture', 'page-Group leaf') make it dense and hinder per-sentence clarity rather than front-loading the key action.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be re-explained, and the description covers the essential mechanics and the read-back limitation. Remaining ambiguity around host/port and page identifier values is minor for this niche automation tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the relationship between 'capture', 'base_page', and 'target_page' (the page-Group leaf), but it leaves 'host' and 'port' unexplained and gives no format or value examples for the page identifiers, so the coverage gap is only partly filled.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Switch the active tab page natively') and clarifies it targets a page-Group leaf. The reliance on undefined internal jargon ('capture', 'base_page') makes the exact scope less immediately graspable, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 implied (use when you need to change the active tab page) and it helpfully points to capture_screenshot for visual confirmation since there is no value read-back. There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against sibling navigation tools like open_card or open_list.

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