focus_view

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

No annotations provided, and the description only says 'Focus a specific view'. It doesn't clarify what focusing entails (e.g., bringing to front, setting focus for keyboard input), any side effects, or validation of view names. This is insufficient for a clear behavioral model.

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 short and includes a structured 'Parameters' section. It conveys the essential information without extraneous words, though the parameter list could be more structured.

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 tool with one parameter, the description lacks detail on what focusing does, possible values, error cases, and relationship to siblings. It is minimally complete, leaving the agent with 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by providing example values like 'Session, Arranger, Detail, etc.'. However, it doesn't specify formatting, case-sensitivity, or an exhaustive list. It adds moderate meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Focus a specific view in Ableton' which matches the tool name and resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_current_view, but the action-oriented verb 'focus' distinguishes it.

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 vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to conditions. The description simply states what it does without contextual advice.

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