pane_focus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Focus a specific chart pane' without explaining side effects (e.g., which pane becomes active, whether the UI scrolls, or what happens if the index is invalid). The '0-based' indexing and reference to pane_list are helpful but do not disclose the underlying behavioral semantics.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and parameter. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler or redundant wording, and is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the basic operation and references the index source via the schema. However, it lacks broader context such as when to use this tool, how it fits into the pane-management workflow, and what the expected result is (e.g., active pane selection). This makes it minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'index' parameter ('Pane index (0-based, from pane_list)'). The tool description repeats this information ('by index (0-based)') without adding additional meaning. Since the schema already documents the parameter effectively, the description meets the baseline but does not go beyond it.

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 action ('Focus') and the resource ('specific chart pane'), with the index parameter specifying the target. It is distinct from sibling tools like pane_set_layout or pane_set_symbol, which perform different operations on panes. However, 'focus' could be more explicit about the resulting behavior (e.g., making the pane active for subsequent commands), so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like calling pane_list first, or how this relates to pane_set_layout or pane_set_symbol. There is no context on whether this is needed before other pane operations. The user must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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