browser_select_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. Beyond the implied activation, it says nothing about whether the containing window is also raised, whether the user's current focus is stolen, or what happens if tabId does not belong to windowId — all material for a state-changing focus operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the action is stated immediately. It is efficient and readable, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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 two-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key behavior unexplained: cross-window validity of the tabId/windowId pair, whether the window is raised, and what is returned on success or failure. The schema documents the inputs, but the agent gets no behavioral envelope.

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%, with both parameters documented ('The tab to bring forward', 'The tab's window'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — e.g. whether the pair must be consistent or what failure looks like on mismatch.

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?

States a specific verb ('Bring...to the front') and resource ('a tab in its window'), so the action is unambiguous and separable from browser_new_tab/browser_close_tab. It doesn't explicitly contrast with browser_show, which focuses a window rather than a tab, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 on when to call this vs. alternatives such as browser_show (bring window forward) or browser_new_tab. The agent must infer that both windowId and tabId are needed to disambiguate tabs across windows, with no stated preconditions or exclusions.

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