Browser Tabs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits: screenshots occur without switching focus, and the tool operates on pages within the Puppeteer browser session. However, it omits whether 'close' is destructive/irreversible, whether tab indices shift after a close, and any session/mode preconditions.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the action list and the differentiator front-loaded before the use-case block. The use-case enumeration is slightly list-heavy but each item earns its place by mapping to a real scenario.

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?

For a 5-parameter, action-dispatching tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action space and usage contexts well. It falls short only on return-value expectations (what 'list' yields) and destructive semantics of 'close', which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the 'screenshot without switching' nuance and confirms session-scoped tab management, but does not clarify index stability or mode/sessionId interaction beyond what the schema says.

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 names a specific verb+resource (manage browser tabs) and enumerates the full action set — list, create, switch, close, screenshot — which maps directly onto the 'action' enum. It also differentiates itself from the browser_screenshot sibling by highlighting screenshots taken WITHOUT switching tabs.

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 'Use this for:' clause gives five concrete triggering scenarios (OAuth popups, new-tab links, multi-page workflows, side-by-side comparison, cleanup), which is strong positive guidance. It never states when NOT to use the tool or names a specific alternative sibling for e.g. plain screenshots, so it stops short of a 5.

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