focus_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only states 'Show and focus' without explaining side effects, validity of view names, error behavior, or whether it changes focus in a particular way. The examples are helpful but limited.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a structured Args section. Every sentence is informative with no fluff.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is essentially a minimal viable. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling view tools and doesn't mention output or edge cases. Given the low complexity, it's adequate but leaves room for more context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides example values for view_name ('Browser', 'Arranger', etc.), adding practical guidance beyond the bare string type. However, it doesn't specify the complete set of allowed values or the exact format.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Show and focus' with resource 'Ableton UI view', clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from siblings like show_view by adding 'focus', but doesn't explicitly name the alternatives. The examples of view names add clarity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of related tools like show_view, hide_view, or is_view_visible. The description does not mention exclusions or alternative scenarios. It only states the action and gives examples.

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