browser_focus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about what happens in headless mode, whether focusing fails or throws, whether it restores minimized windows, or any side effects. Only the bare intent is stated.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient for a trivial action. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but structurally it wastes nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a tool with an undocumented parameter and no annotations, the description should still clarify the tab_index behavior and any failure mode; it leaves meaningful gaps.

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 0% and there is 1 parameter (tab_index) that the description never mentions. The description neither explains what tab_index selects nor that it is optional/defaulted, leaving the parameter fully undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('bring to the foreground') and resource (browser window), so an agent can identify the action. It is implicitly distinct from browser_switch_tab, but the description never names that sibling or clarifies the difference, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance. The word 'Explicitly' faintly suggests the window may already be open but unfocused, but it never says when focus is necessary, when it's a no-op, or when to prefer browser_switch_tab or browser_launch instead.

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