set_hud_focus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions controlling and highlighting but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or persists across sessions. The clearing behavior is noted, but overall behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes actionable instructions and example. Minor redundancy ('Directly controls' and 'real-time 3D visual feedback') slightly reduces efficiency.

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 control tool with two required parameters, the description covers both and explains the clearing behavior. Given that an output schema exists (though not detailed here), the description is sufficiently complete to guide the agent.

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 description must explain parameters. It describes file_paths as absolute or relative paths and intent as a concise 2-4 word description. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, though relative path handling could be more explicit.

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 tool controls the V.I.S.O.R Developer HUD to highlight files, with specific verb 'controls' and resource 'HUD'. It distinguishes from siblings like search_codebase or build_context by focusing on visual feedback during reasoning.

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 suggests using sequentially during investigation and describes clearing with empty list. However, it does not compare to alternatives or state when not to use, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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