focus_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, reversibility, error behavior, or whether it changes UI state persistently. The meaning of 'focus' is left implicit, and no information about invalid view names is given.

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 extremely compact: one sentence for purpose and one line for the parameter. Every word is functional, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 its simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally viable but has gaps. The list of valid view names is incomplete ('etc.'), and no behavioral details are provided, but the tool is straightforward enough that this may suffice in many contexts. Still, it could be more precise.

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 clarify the parameter. It provides the parameter name and examples of valid values ('Session, Arranger, Detail, etc.'), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify exact allowed strings, case sensitivity, or a definitive list, leaving ambiguity.

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 action ('Focus a specific view in Ableton') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling read tool 'get_current_view' by being the write counterpart, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is the complementary operation to get_current_view, nor any prerequisites or scenarios where it should be avoided.

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