hwp_foreground_select_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and uses it well: it discloses non-mutation (does not activate or edit), the short-lived nature of candidates, and the explicit user identification requirement. It does not detail what happens to any previously selected candidate, but this is a minor gap for a single-selection 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?

Two short sentences each carry distinct information: the first states the action, the second clarifies non-effects and the required user precondition. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 selector with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it does not do, and the key precondition. The main remaining omission is pointing the agent to the sibling listing tool that produces candidate_id, which is inferable from 'listed window' but not explicit.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies candidate_id refers to a listed 'candidate' for a Hancom window and ties it to the 'desired listed window', but it never explicitly says candidate_id comes from hwp_foreground_list_windows or describes its format/expiry semantics.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Select'), a resource ('short-lived Hancom-window candidate'), and the intended effect ('for foreground typing'). It also distinguishes itself from activation/editing tools by explicitly stating it does not activate or edit the 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 sets a clear precondition—the user must explicitly identify the desired listed window and active tab before selection—and warns that this tool does not activate or edit. It does not name sibling tools like hwp_foreground_apply_preview as alternatives, so it stops short of fully explicit routing.

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