game_ui_focus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does state that the tool can bring the window forward and return focus to the game, which is a useful side effect. However, it omits potential side effects, prerequisites, or reversibility details, leaving some uncertainty for a focus-altering 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 compact at two sentences, with the core action stated first. The second sentence adds a practical troubleshooting hint. No unnecessary fluff or redundancy is present.

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, the description covers the primary purpose and one use case well, but it fails to address the 'widget' parameter and does not describe return values (though an output schema exists). Without annotations, this leaves the tool less than fully specified for all scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the possible values for the 'mode' parameter ('game, ui, game_and_ui, window') but says nothing about the 'widget' parameter, leaving it completely undocumented. This is a significant gap for an agent needing to pass a widget.

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 sets the game's input focus and enumerates four distinct modes. This makes its purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from input-sending tools like game_key or game_mouse, which trigger actions rather than alter focus.

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 a concrete usage trigger: 'Bring the window forward and hand focus back to the game with mode="game" if input seems to be going nowhere.' This tells the agent when to reach for this tool, albeit without explicitly comparing it to sibling alternatives like game_reset_input.

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