Touchpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only describes the intended effect (bring to foreground) without mentioning error behavior (e.g., invalid window_id), side effects, or whether the operation is synchronous/blocking.

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?

Three distinct sections (action, prerequisite, args) with zero waste. The critical workflow instruction ('Use windows() first') is prominently placed, and the opening sentence immediately establishes scope.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter action tool where an output schema exists (removing need to describe return values). However, missing error handling documentation and sibling differentiation that would be necessary for robust agent operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description minimally compensates by stating the parameter is 'The window ID to activate.' This provides basic semantic meaning absent from the schema, though it lacks details on format constraints or validation rules.

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 specific action (bringing a window to the foreground) and identifies the target resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling `focus` tool, which likely handles input focus rather than z-order/foregrounding.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite guidance ('Use windows() to find the window ID first'), clearly establishing the workflow sequence. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or differentiation from similar window manipulation siblings like `focus`.

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