activate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful side effect (moving the window to the system foreground, i.e. it changes OS focus) and hints at a return value (focused window information), but does not cover failure modes such as no MiniMax window existing or how the returned focus info is shaped (no output schema).

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource and appends the return information; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent activation tool with annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers action, effect, and a rough return hint. It is slightly short of full completeness because the returned 'focused window info' is never characterized and edge cases are unaddressed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed.

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?

States a specific verb (唤醒/activate, bring to system foreground) and a specific resource (the MiniMax window), plus a return payload (focused window info). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like minimax_windows (which lists windows) or minimax_screenshot, though it never names an alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when the MiniMax window is not focused or needs to be brought forward. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to sibling tools such as minimax_windows for discovering the window first.

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