Activates a specified window by raising it, switching to its workspace, and unminimizing it when needed, enabling agents to interact with the intended application.
Focus and raise a window (switching to its workspace and unminimizing it if needed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| window_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that focusing may switch to the window's workspace and unminimize it, which are important side effects beyond the schema. It does not state failure behavior or what happens if the window_id is invalid.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with a concise parenthetical. Every part adds relevant information, and there is no wasted text.
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?
The operation is simple, an output schema exists, and the description covers the main action plus key side effects. The main remaining gap is that it does not tell the agent where to obtain a valid window_id.
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?
There is one required parameter, window_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description refers to 'a window' but does not explain the ID format, source, or validity requirements, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Focus and raise a window.' The parenthetical further clarifies the effect, but it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from sibling window-management tools such as window_action or move_resize_window.
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?
Usage is implied by the action name: use this when you need to focus or raise a window. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the many sibling window tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.