ui_focused_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Return info' and does not clarify whether this is a safe read-only operation, what fields the info contains, whether it can fail, or how it behaves when no window is focused. This is a significant gap for a UI inspection tool.

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, focused sentence with no filler. The key action and target resource are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to scan and act on.

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?

The tool is very simple with zero parameters, so minimal context is needed. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what 'info' consists of, leaving the agent uncertain about the shape or usefulness of the return value.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 names a specific verb and resource: returning info about the currently focused FL Studio window. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like ui_focused_plugin or browser_focused, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives and 'info' is somewhat vague about what exactly is returned.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need to know which FL Studio window is currently focused. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over related UI inspection tools such as ui_focused_plugin or browser_focused, and no exclusions are provided.

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