fx_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It names the core action but does not reveal side effects on the previously active window, behavior for invalid handles, or whether the switch has any persistence or side effects.

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 seven words, front-loaded, and free of filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to missing behavioral and usage context.

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?

Even for a one-parameter tool, the schema lists the handle as not required, but the description does not explain what happens when it is omitted. It also does not connect this tool to sibling fx_windows for obtaining valid handles, leaving important operational gaps.

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 phrase 'by handle' gives minimal context that the handle identifies the target window, but with 0% schema description coverage the tool should clarify where handles come from and what format they take. The description does not compensate for that gap.

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 verb ('Switch') and resource ('active window'), and mentions the handle mechanism. It avoids tautology and is implicitly distinct from siblings like fx_windows, but does not explicitly differentiate from related navigation tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fx_windows or fx_navigate. It does not mention prerequisites like obtaining a window handle or contexts where switching is appropriate.

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