desktop_window_focus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('focus a window') and matching logic ('partial match'), but lacks critical details: what happens if multiple windows match (e.g., first match, error), whether it requires specific permissions or window states, and what the expected outcome is (e.g., window brought to foreground). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes essential detail (partial matching) without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral traits like error handling, matching precedence, or system requirements. While the schema covers the parameter, the lack of output schema and annotations means the description should provide more context about results and constraints, which it fails to do adequately.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'title' fully documented in the schema as 'Window title to match (partial)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of partial matching or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('a window'), and specifies the matching mechanism ('by title (partial match)'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like desktop_window_list (which lists windows) and desktop_window_resize (which resizes windows), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 (e.g., whether the window must be visible or active), nor does it compare to siblings like desktop_window_list (for finding windows) or desktop_app_launch (for opening applications). Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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