arc_switch_tab

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It does not disclose what happens if neither parameter is provided, if the tab is not found, or if switching changes the active tab state. No error or edge case behavior is mentioned.

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 extremely concise but lacks structure. While every word is necessary, it omits critical information such as parameter logic and behavior. Conciseness is good but at the cost of completeness.

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 has two optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling navigation tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify parameter interaction, success criteria, or how it relates to tools like arc_list_tabs or arc_go_back.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain parameter precedence (e.g., if both tab_index and url are given) or format details like the fact that url uses partial matching.

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 'Switch to specified tab' clearly indicates the verb (switch) and resource (tab). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like arc_go_back or arc_open_url, which might also switch tabs, so it loses a point for lack of distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain when to provide tab_index versus url, nor does it mention prerequisites like having tabs open or which tool to use for listing tabs first.

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