gmod_focus_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behavioral traits: a Windows-only platform restriction and the required running-game state. It omits what happens on failure (error vs no-op) and any return behavior, so coverage is partial.

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?

Two short clauses with the platform constraint front-loaded in brackets, followed by the precondition. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema window action, the description covers the platform caveat and the required game state, which is most of what an agent needs. Failure behavior is the only notable gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter meaning is missing.

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 states a specific action and resource: restore and bring the Garry's Mod window to the foreground. This is unambiguous and distinct from every sibling (connect, rcon, lua, screenshot, zoom, keys, console), though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It supplies one concrete precondition, 'Требуется запущенная игра' (the game must be running), which tells the agent when the call is valid. It gives no guidance on alternatives or on what to do when the precondition fails, so usage is implied rather than fully framed.

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