switch_target

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action and purpose without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention side effects (e.g., if this interrupts ongoing debugging, requires re-authentication, or affects other tools), error conditions, or what the switch entails operationally beyond the high-level goal.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose with zero wasted words. It uses parentheses for concise examples without disrupting flow, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but has output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and context adequately. However, it lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral implications, and integration with siblings like list_targets, leaving gaps for effective agent invocation despite the output schema handling return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'target_id' represents (e.g., how to obtain valid IDs from list_targets), format expectations, or examples. The description's mention of 'target thread' hints at the parameter's role but lacks actionable details.

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 clearly states the action ('switches the CDP connection') and resource ('to a different target thread'), with examples of thread types (WebView, AppService) and purpose ('to debug different parts of the miniapp'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on connection switching rather than debugging actions like breakpoints or script evaluation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 ('to debug different parts of the miniapp') and suggests when to use it based on debugging needs, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or named alternatives. It doesn't specify prerequisites like needing an active connection or list_targets first.

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