browser_focused

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It conveys a read-like operation by describing output fields, but it never explicitly states that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or what happens when no browser node is focused.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key output information immediately and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the two output fields and the target. It falls short of perfect only by not covering edge cases such as an empty browser selection or the exact format of the returned caption/file type.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter explanation is required. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics instead.

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 identifies what is returned—caption and file type—and the target resource, the currently focused FL browser node. It distinguishes this from sibling browser tools by highlighting 'currently focused,' though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'gets.'

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 implies usage: call this when you need info about the currently focused browser node. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as browser_tabs, browser_preview, or browser_select, nor does it state when not to use it.

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