gui_focus_window

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

The description adds behavioral context by noting that a partial title match works, which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., window not found) or any other effects on focus state.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the action and a key behavioral detail. However, using German may reduce clarity for an English-oriented agent.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential information (action, partial title). It is reasonably complete, though error handling or success conditions are missing.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that the 'title' parameter accepts partial matches. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though examples or format would be helpful.

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 action ('brings a window to the foreground') and specifies that a partial title suffices. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like gui_list_windows or gui_inspect_window, though not explicitly.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the window existing or being listed, nor does it indicate that listing windows first is recommended.

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