as_ui_focus

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

The description discloses the return type (JSON indicating success) and the main effect (focusing the window). Annotations add idempotentHint=true, indicating safe repeated calls. However, it does not describe edge cases (e.g., what happens if no window exists) or potential side effects beyond focusing.

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 two sentences: one for purpose, one for return type. It is concise with no redundant information. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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 tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main purpose and return value. Minor gaps include missing prerequisites (e.g., IDE must be running) and error behavior, but these are partly addressed by the output schema.

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 no parameters, and the input schema is empty (coverage 100%). The description does not need to add parameter-level information. Baseline score of 4 applies as no additional documentation is required.

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: bring the Android Studio window to the foreground. It specifies the resource ('Android Studio window') and the verb ('bring to foreground'), making the purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like as_ui_screenshot or as_ui_invoke_action, but as_ui_focus is unique in its focus function.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., IDE must be running) or scenarios (e.g., after launching IDE or when interacting with UI). Sibling tools exist for similar UI interactions, but no context is given for choosing this one.

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