focus

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It only states the basic action, omitting details like whether the element must be focusable, side effects, or failure modes. The minimal description does not compensate for the lack of annotations.

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, consisting of two short sentences. Every part is functional: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second explains the parameter. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is partially complete. However, it lacks details on boundary cases (e.g., element not found) and behavioral aspects, making it merely adequate for a basic tool.

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 input schema has zero coverage for parameter descriptions. The tool's description adds a brief explanation of the 'element_id' parameter ('The element ID to focus'), providing minimal semantics beyond the schema's title and type. This is a marginal improvement but still basic.

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 action 'Move keyboard focus' and the target 'element', using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'click' and 'type_text', which perform different actions.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use the tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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