switch_tab

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the attach-if-not-attached behavior, which is useful, but doesn't describe what happens to the currently active tab, whether the switch is reversible, what the return/state looks like, or any failure modes (e.g., invalid tab_id). For a state-mutating navigation tool with zero annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 — a single concise sentence with embedded example. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words, though it could arguably be slightly more explanatory without becoming bloated.

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?

This is a state-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description only hints at the attach side-effect. It doesn't explain how tab_id maps to tool state, whether the switch persists, what happens after switching, or interaction with list_tabs. For an agent needing to correctly sequence operations, this is incomplete.

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 description shows a concrete example (switch_tab(123)) which implies tab_id is the target tab identifier. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lone tab_id parameter. It doesn't explain how to obtain a valid tab_id (presumably from list_tabs), which is a missed opportunity though the example helps.

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 verb (switch) and resource (tab) with a concrete example and side-effect ('未 attach 则先 attach' — if not attached, attach first). It's clear it switches subsequent commands to a given tab. However, it doesn't differentiate itself strongly from siblings like new_tab, close_tab, ensure_real_tab, though the purpose is specific enough to be understood.

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 usage context — switching subsequent commands to a target tab, with auto-attach behavior. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or any exclusions. The sibling context (new_tab, list_tabs) suggests complementary tools, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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