Focus pane

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects such as whether it changes keyboard focus, brings the window to the foreground, requires the pane to be visible, or is idempotent. This is a significant gap for a UI mutation 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 a single, compact sentence that gets directly to the point. It avoids unnecessary detail, which is appropriate for a simple tool, though it could benefit from a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and one undocumented parameter, the description is too sparse. It explains what the tool does but omits crucial context about side effects, parameter semantics, and usage scenarios. The availability of many sibling tools further reduces the agent's ability to choose correctly based on this description alone.

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 declares a single required string parameter 'paneId' with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. The agent is left to infer what paneId refers to and how to obtain it. With schema coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter context.

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 clearly states the verb 'focus' and the resource 'pane', and adds that it affects the associated tab/window. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_panes, open_pane, and close_pane. However, it does not specify what 'focus' means in this context (e.g., bringing to front vs. setting keyboard focus), leaving slight ambiguity.

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 use this tool or how it compares to alternatives. There is no mention of typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the large set of sibling tools, the agent receives no help in selecting this one over others.

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