pane_focus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., an open chart or valid pane), behavior for invalid indices, or whether the tool returns anything.

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, compact sentence with no filler. The action, resource, and indexing scheme are all present and front-loaded.

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 one-parameter UI focus action, the description plus schema covers the essential details: what is focused and what the parameter means. It could mention prerequisites or invalid-index behavior, but the simplicity of the operation reduces the need for extensive context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the index parameter. The description restates '0-based' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score for high coverage.

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 ('Focus') and a specific resource ('chart pane by index'), making it immediately clear what the tool does. It is distinct from sibling tools like pane_set_layout or pane_set_symbol, which perform different pane-related actions.

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 gives the core usage concept ('by index, 0-based') and the schema points to pane_list as the source of the index, implying it should be used after retrieving pane_list. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool vs. alternatives or any exclusions.

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