list_tabs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description discloses the return format (a list of tab objects with specified fields) which is useful. However, it doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it reflects live state, or whether there are timing considerations (e.g., after navigation). The disclosure of the {tabId,url,title,active,attached} structure is reasonable behavioral context.

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 a single concise sentence that conveys the purpose and return structure efficiently. There's no wasted text. It's slightly under-specified regarding the 'nekoro 托管组' context but otherwise well-structured and front-loaded with the primary 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?

For a simple zero-parameter listing tool, the description provides the key information: what it returns and the field structure. However, the ambiguous term 'nekoro 托管组' leaves doubt about what domain it operates in, and given the large sibling set with tab-related tools, slightly more context about its relationship to them would improve completeness. The lack of annotations increases the burden.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, the description's job on this dimension is minimal — there's nothing to explain. The baseline of 4 for 0-param tools is appropriate since there's nothing for the description to fail at.

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 states the tool lists tabs in the 'nekoro 托管组' (hosted group) with fields tabId, url, title, active, attached. It has a clear verb+resource ('lists tabs') and specifies the return structure. However, the term 'nekoro 托管组' is domain-specific and unclear to a general agent, and it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like switch_tab, close_tab, ensure_real_tab, or state.

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 it's for retrieving the current set of tabs, which is clear in context. However, there's no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives like state, ensure_real_tab, or switch_tab. The scoping to 'nekoro 托管组' hints at an operating context but is ambiguous without further explanation.

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