browser_focus_element

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

With annotations declaring destructiveHint=true, the description should disclose side effects or state changes, but it only says 'focuses' without elaboration. It adds no behavioral context beyond the minimal verb, leaving the agent unaware of potential impacts.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient and easy to parse. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices informational depth, though for a simple tool with one parameter this brevity is acceptable.

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 has a single parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete regarding side effects (focus can change page state), return behavior, or use cases. The destructiveHint annotation signals this is not a pure read operation, so more context is needed to use the tool safely.

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 schema fully documents the 'target' parameter (100% coverage), so the description's 'target element' adds little new meaning. It doesn't explain selector syntax or snapshot ID usage beyond what the schema already provides, but it does reinforce the parameter's role.

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 ('focuses') and identifies the resource ('target element'), clearly stating the tool's function. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_hover, but the action is distinct enough to be understood.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use focus versus alternatives such as browser_click or browser_hover, and there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context hints. The user is left to infer appropriate use cases.

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