computer.focus_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by stating partial matching and OS-level operation without app-specific integration. However, it omits edge-case behavior such as multiple matches, no match found, or whether a minimized window is restored.

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 two sentences with no filler. The essential mechanism is front-loaded, and the integration note is a single useful clause.

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 tool, the description is mostly adequate, but without an output schema or annotations, it should at least note failure behavior or ambiguity handling. It does not state what happens if the window is not found or multiple windows match.

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 0%, but the description compensates well for the single 'window' parameter by defining it as a partial title or application name with a concrete example. This gives the agent the necessary format and matching semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('focus') and resource ('real OS window') and clarifies it matches by partial title or application name. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling window-management tools like minimize_window, maximize_window, and close_window.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_windows can provide window identifiers, that this should precede click/type actions, or that it is not needed for the active window.

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