app_switch_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the core behavior (switching context) but lacks details on side effects, error conditions (e.g., invalid handle), or whether the change is reversible. Basic transparency is present but could be more comprehensive.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the critical linkage to a sibling tool is included. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description fully covers the necessary context: what it does, how to get valid input, and the scope of effect ('subsequent app_* calls'). No gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that the 'handle' parameter comes from app_list_windows. This adds concrete meaning beyond the schema, which only specifies type 'string'. The context makes the parameter's role clear.

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 explicitly states the action ('Switch which window subsequent app_* calls operate on') and the resource (the target window context). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like app_list_windows (which provides handles) and other app_* tools that operate on a 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?

The description implies when to use: to change the active window for subsequent app_* commands. It provides a prerequisite ('Get handles from app_list_windows'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though the narrow purpose makes this less critical.

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