imgui_bring_to_front

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the two effects (bring to front, give focus) but does not disclose side effects like whether this changes window state permanently, affects visibility, interacts with layering, or requires the window to be currently rendered/visible. For an action tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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 concise sentence that states both effects without waste. Appropriate length for a simple single-parameter tool.

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 mutation tool (no output schema, one parameter), the description covers the core action. However, with zero annotations, the lack of any mention of behavioral implications (whether it persists, whether the window needs to exist, interaction with layering) leaves a moderately sized gap in completeness, though the tool's simplicity keeps the burden limited.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single 'id' parameter described as 'Window identifier,' so the schema already documents it. Baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no additional meaning about what format the id takes (e.g., name vs handle) or how to obtain it, but there's little burden given the single well-described parameter.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Bring a window to the front and give it focus.' Distinguishes reasonably from siblings like imgui_set_window_visibility, imgui_set_window_layer, and imgui_focus_widget by uniquely combining z-order and focus actions on a window. However, the distinction between this and imgui_focus_widget (which focuses a widget) is slightly ambiguous—it names the resource as a window here.

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?

Implied usage context (brings a window to the front, gives focus) but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. Does not mention when one would prefer imgui_focus_widget, imgui_set_window_layer, or the window_control tool over this one, nor any exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites like whether the window must already exist.

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