safari_tabs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden, and it does so by specifying the exact shape of returned entries (window_index, tab_index, url, title, is_current) and clarifying the meaning of is_current as the frontmost tab of the window. It does not explicitly assert that listing has no side effects, but the verb 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation. This is a reasonable level of disclosure for a simple enumeration tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. The opening sentence states the action and scope immediately, and the second sentence adds the essential return fields, so every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, so the description must specify what the agent will receive; it does, listing all fields and defining the one ambiguous value. It does not mention edge cases like an empty Safari session, but for a tool this simple the information provided is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The description focuses entirely on the output fields, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every open tab across every Safari window'), making the tool's action unambiguous. It also enumerates the fields each entry contains, which clearly separates it from sibling tools like safari_read or safari_close.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as safari_read or safari_js, and does not mention any exclusions or alternatives. Usage must be inferred entirely from the action itself, which is not sufficient for routing an agent in ambiguous situations.

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