imgui_focus_widget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description explains the delayed effect (next frame) which is useful, but doesn't disclose whether the widget must be visible/enabled, whether focus can fail silently, what happens to the previously focused widget, or whether the widget must be in the same window. For a state-changing interaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 states the action and the key behavioral detail (next frame delivery). No wasted words or redundant content. Everything present earns its place.

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?

This is a state-modifying interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, placing the burden on the description. With only one sentence covering purpose and timing, it lacks critical context: failure modes (silent no-op if widget missing), behavioral constraints (focus requires widget visibility), and interaction with subsequent input events. A tool of this type should provide more operational detail.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id: 'Widget ID to focus', window: 'Window ID containing the widget') are already documented in the schema. The description adds essentially nothing beyond what the schema states — it doesn't explain the relationship between the two parameters (e.g., IDs are scoped per-window, names must be exact). Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Set keyboard focus to a widget (it will receive focus on the next frame)' uses a specific verb+resource combination, clearly stating the action and its effect. Among siblings like imgui_click_widget, imgui_hover_widget, and imgui_type_text, this tool's purpose is distinct enough that the agent can differentiate it as the focus-setting operation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 such as imgui_hover_widget or imgui_click_widget, or what prerequisites exist (e.g., the widget must already exist, must be focusable). The parenthetical about 'next frame' timing implies some temporal awareness but does not explain the practical invocation pattern or ordering relative to other operations.

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