socials_focus_agent_tab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the effect (brings to foreground) and the analogy to clicking, which is the entire behavioral scope. It does not mention potential side effects like requiring the tab to be pinned, but for this simple action the description is sufficiently transparent.

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 short sentences: the first states the action, the second gives the use case. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 simplicity—no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward UI action—the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. The sibling list shows related tools, but no additional context is needed here.

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, and the schema is empty. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools because no parameter explanation is needed. The description confirms no inputs are required.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Bring the pinned agent tab to the foreground', which clearly states the action and target. It also adds an analogy 'same as clicking it' to reinforce understanding. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like socials_set_agent_tab (configuration) and socials_get_agent_tab (retrieval).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when you want to watch what Claude is doing.' This provides clear context. While it does not name alternatives or exclusions, the specific use case is enough for a zero-parameter UI action.

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