bring_to_front

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the exact z-order computation ('current max + 1') and the rendering effect ('on top of everything else'). This goes beyond a simple 'bring to front' and gives the agent a precise model of the operation.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and provides a precise technical detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and effect.

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 simple and has no output schema. The description fully explains what happens (z-order set to max+1, visual on top) and implicitly covers the result. It does not describe error conditions or side effects, but these are likely minimal. Overall, adequate for the complexity.

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 67%: 'page' and 'visual' have descriptions, while 'reportSessionId' does not. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The parameters are simple and self-explanatory, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 visual to the FRONT of the page') and the resource ('visual'), with a specific implementation detail (z = current max + 1). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'send_to_back' by explicitly targeting the front.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when a visual should be rendered on top of all others. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the targeted behavior is unambiguous given siblings like 'send_to_back' and 'set_visual_z_order'.

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