cnki_co_switch

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It states the main effect (foregrounding a tab) and adds 'window focus follows,' which is a behavioral detail. However, it does not mention edge cases like invalid index handling (though that may be considered minor for a simple 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 one concise sentence, directly stating the action and the focus-following behavior. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose and parameter meaning. It does not explain error behavior or return values, but these are not required for such a basic action and the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The sole parameter 'index' has a clear description: tab number starting from 0, with a reference to cnki_co_tabs for context. This fully explains the parameter's meaning and usage, exceeding basic schema coverage by providing cross-reference.

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 tool's purpose: to bring a specified tab to the foreground and follow window focus. It uses specific verb 'switch' and identifies the resource ('specified tab'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like cnki_co_tabs (list tabs) or cnki_co_open (open new tab).

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when a tab needs focus, but lacks explicit guidance such as 'use when you need to activate a tab' or conditions that would make this tool preferable over others.

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