focus_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core effect (fronting and focusing a window) and the profile-locality constraint, but does not describe failure behavior, permissions, or side effects beyond the focus action. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 tightly written sentences with no wasted language. The core action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the critical profile-scoping prerequisite.

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 two-parameter focus tool with an output schema, the definition covers the essential profile requirement. It is still incomplete because it does not say how to obtain window_id (e.g., via list_windows) or when a sibling like get_current_window is more appropriate.

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 50%: window_id is documented in the schema, while profile_id is not. The description compensates for profile_id by explaining that it is required, obtained from profiles_list, and scopes all object IDs, but it adds no further meaning for window_id beyond the schema.

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 front and focus it.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_window, close_window, and list_windows, though it does not explicitly name those 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?

It gives useful prerequisite guidance for profile_id ('obtain it from profiles_list') and warns that IDs are profile-local. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus siblings such as get_current_window or tabs_switch, leaving usage implied rather than fully guided.

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