browser_focus_browser

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It discloses the OS-level side effect (foregrounding), the platform limitation (macOS), and the dependency on the bridge connection. For a zero-parameter tool, this is sufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loads the action and includes all necessary context. No wasted words.

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, no output schema, and a simple action, the description is complete. It states what it does, when to use it, and the platform constraint. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is 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?

There are no parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not introduce any ambiguity.

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 (bring to foreground), the resource (the connected browser), and the specific browsers supported. It is unambiguous and distinct from all sibling tools, which handle tabs, navigation, or OS input differently.

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?

It explains the purpose ('so OS-level input lands in it') and imposes a platform constraint (macOS only). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the unique function makes usage context obvious. No exclusions are needed beyond the platform note.

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