desktop_focus_cc

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the simple behavior: bringing a window to the foreground. It is clear and sufficient for the action, though it could mention edge cases like if the window does not exist.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose without any unnecessary words. It is highly concise.

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 focus tool, the description is adequate for basic understanding, but it lacks parameter explanation and usage context. Given no output schema, it meets minimum requirements but has room for improvement.

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 single parameter session_id has 0% schema description coverage and is not explained in the tool description. The description adds no meaning to the parameter, leaving its purpose unclear.

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?

Description clearly states the tool brings the Claude Code/Codex window to the foreground. It uses a specific verb-resource structure and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on different aspects of Claude Code.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like cc_focus_session or desktop_ask_cc. The description only states what it does without providing context or exclusions.

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