browser_focus_window

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 does not say whether this is an OS-level focus change, what happens if window_id is invalid or already focused, whether it can fail, or any side effects on other windows.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound, but the extreme brevity here is under-specification rather than effective conciseness given the undocumented parameter and absent annotations.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the definition leaves the agent without enough information to call it confidently or handle failure cases. A sentence on window_id provenance and error behavior would close the 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 0% and window_id has no documented meaning, source, or format. The description mentions 'a browser window' but never explains how to obtain a valid window_id (e.g., from browser_windows), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('bring ... to the foreground') and a specific resource ('a browser window'), so the basic action is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as browser_focus, browser_switch_tab, or browser_windows, which is the main missing signal.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this rather than browser_focus, browser_switch_tab, or browser_windows, and no mention of preconditions such as the window needing to exist. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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