window_focus

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the concrete behavioral effect — raising the window to the front and focusing it — and states that a confirmation string is returned. It does not cover edge cases like a missing window, but the idempotent and non-destructive hints already cover the safety profile.

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 extremely concise: one meaningful action sentence plus a minimal Args/Returns docstring. There is no filler or redundant explanation.

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 one-parameter, idempotent, non-destructive tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. The only notable gap is behavior when no matching window is found or whether minimized windows are restored.

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 description paraphrases the query parameter's meaning as a title fragment or identifier, which matches the input schema's own description. It adds no extra detail such as the exact 0x... ID format or any additional constraints, so it does not significantly go beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: bring a window to the foreground and focus it, selecting by title fragment or ID. This clearly separates it from siblings like window_list and window_close.

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 use case is implied: focus an existing window when you have a title fragment or window ID. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as window_list for discovering window IDs.

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