list_tabs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return format, the meaning of the 'grouped' flag, the mixed-tab pitfall in ungrouped mode, and the field-absence in older extension versions. For a read-only list operation, this is solid transparency even though side effects are not 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 compact: one sentence for the core return type and fields, one sentence for the critical 'grouped' caveat. Every clause adds distinct value and nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must explain the return shape itself. It fully specifies the array structure, field names, the 'grouped' flag semantics, and edge cases about old versions. This is complete for a zero-parameter listing 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing to explain. Per guidelines, a no-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description instead enriches the return-value semantics, which is the right focus.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'list_tabs() → nekoro 托管组里的标签' with an explicit return shape [{tabId,url,title,active,attached}]. It clearly distinguishes the scope (managed group tabs) and flags the ungrouped fallback case, avoiding confusion with generic tab listing.

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?

It gives explicit usage caveats: when 'grouped: False', the list is actually all non-chrome:// tabs and includes user's own tabs, so it should not be used as 'tabs opened by nekoro'. It doesn't name sibling alternatives, but the warning is clear and actionable.

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