focus_window

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

Given annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds useful context about permission requirements ('action tier + app allowlist'). However, it does not disclose behaviors like parameter precedence when both hwnd and title_contains are provided.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds a critical requirement without unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose and permission, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. Missing details about behavior when no parameters or both parameters are provided, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage or relationships beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Bring a window to the foreground') and the resource (a window). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_windows or read_window, which have different purposes.

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 provides a prerequisite ('REQUIRES action tier + app allowlist') but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ui_set_value or read_window, nor does it state when not to use it.

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