focus_window

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

The description provides some behavioral details (substring matching, case-insensitive) but does not explain the implications of the destructiveHint: true annotation. There is no mention of side effects like focus stealing or behavior when no match or multiple matches occur.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the main action and details.

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?

While the description covers the primary function, it omits details about edge cases (no matching window, multiple matches), error handling, and the meaning of the destructiveHint annotation. Given the simple tool structure, it is adequate 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 description adds meaning to the title_pattern parameter by specifying it as a substring pattern with case-insensitive matching per wmctrl. This goes beyond the schema's minimal definition, helping the agent understand the expected input format.

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 tool's action: bringing a window to the foreground. It specifies the matching mechanism (substring, case-insensitive) and references wmctrl, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like close_window or move_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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_windows to find titles first, or when to avoid using it (e.g., if the window is already focused). The description lacks when-not or alternative tool recommendations.

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