Restores the Genshin Impact window from minimized, optionally brings it to the foreground, and reports client size, 16:9 status, 1080P threshold, and foreground state to verify automation readiness.
跑自动化前的窗口准备（会改变你当前焦点）：把原神从最小化还原并尝试切到前台，回报客户区尺寸、是否 16:9、是否 ≥1080P、是否在前台。采集/秘境要求「可见 + 前台 + 16:9 ≥1920×1080」，不满足时自动化会失败或暂停。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| no_focus | No | 只还原（取消最小化），不抢前台（默认 false） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly warns '会改变你当前焦点', discloses the side effect of restoring from minimized and stealing focus, and states the precondition that automation will fail or pause if requirements aren't met. It doesn't cover failure modes (e.g., what happens if the window isn't found), keeping it at 4.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the focus-change warning, followed by the requirement rationale. No filler, though the requirement criteria are slightly dense.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers action, side effects, and even the reported values (client size, aspect ratio, resolution, foreground status) plus success criteria. It's essentially complete; only the absence of sibling disambiguation is a minor gap.
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 single parameter no_focus is already fully documented in the schema. The description does not reference the no_focus option at all, so it adds nothing beyond the schema for parameters; baseline 3 applies.
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 names a concrete action (restore the Genshin window from minimized and try to bring it to the foreground) plus the diagnostics it reports (client area size, 16:9, ≥1080P, foreground status). An agent can tell this is a window-preparation step rather than a launch/run tool. It stops short of naming a sibling to contrast with, so it lands at 4.
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?
It clearly states the context of use: '跑自动化前的窗口准备' and that collection/domain runs require '可见 + 前台 + 16:9 ≥1920×1080' or automation fails/pauses. It gives clear when-to-use context but no explicit 'do not use this, use X instead' alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.