announcement_focus_active

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('focus') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits: whether this is a read/write operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens if no announcement is active, or what the expected outcome is (e.g., UI change, state update). The description is minimal and lacks context on effects or constraints.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation-like action ('focus'), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'focus' entails, the result of the operation, error conditions, or how it interacts with the system state. For a tool that likely changes state, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. No additional parameter information is required or provided.

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 'Focus the currently active announcement presentation' clearly states the action (focus) and target (active announcement presentation), but it's somewhat vague about what 'focus' means operationally. It distinguishes from siblings like 'announcement_get_active' (read-only) and 'announcement_trigger_active' (trigger action), but doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'focus_active_presentation' or 'playlists_focus_active_announcement'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an active announcement), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'announcement_trigger_active' or 'focus_active_presentation'. Usage is implied by the name but not articulated.

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