virtual_desk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and adds useful context about cost and call frequency. It does not explain what 'state' includes or what happens if no tabs are open, but for a simple listing tool this is a minor 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?

Three sentences with zero fluff: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by direct usage instructions and a cost hint. Every sentence adds actionable information.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is listed, when to call it, how to use the results, and how often it may be invoked. No missing information is needed to call or interpret the tool correctly.

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, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies no input is needed. It adds no parameter-specific detail because none exists, which is appropriate.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List all open tabs with IDs, URLs and state.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like switch_tab or tab_status, which operate on specific tabs or current tab state rather than enumerating everything.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call it first in every session, after a reconnect, or when unsure.' It also tells the agent to reuse listed tab IDs instead of opening duplicates, and explicitly states the cost profile: 'Cheap, call liberally.'

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