focus_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and does not describe side effects, limitations, failure conditions, or what happens on success or failure, leaving significant behavioral information unaddressed.

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-purpose sentence followed by a short Parameters section, with no redundant filler. Everything included adds value and is front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity—one parameter and an output schema exists—the description is largely complete. It tells the user exactly what the tool does and how to supply hwnd, though it lacks deeper behavioral caveats that might exist in more complex environments.

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 input schema only defines hwnd as an integer, but the description adds that it is 'The window handle (from list_windows)', providing essential provenance and integration context. With a single parameter and 0% schema coverage, this explanation effectively compensates for schema limitations.

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 uses a specific verb 'Bring' and resource 'window to the foreground and give it focus', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like move_window, resize_window, close_window, and get_foreground_window, which address different aspects of window management.

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 implies usage when a window needs to be brought to the foreground, and it notes that hwnd comes from list_windows, providing useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like set_window_state, leaving room for ambiguity.

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