desktop_focus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses logging to navigation history for tier calculations, indicating state effects, but does not specify whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or other side effects. It provides moderate transparency.

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?

Description is concise with two sentences and a separate line for workspace_id. Information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 description explains purpose, usage, and side effects but does not mention what the tool returns or its output format. Given no output schema, this is a gap. The parameter details are clear, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates that workspace_id is optional and mentions fallback behavior, but the schema already includes that detail ('Falls back to env/CWD folder name / default'). No additional value beyond schema.

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 tool focuses on a node and expands its subgraph with relations and child nodes, using a specific verb and resource. It also mentions logging for tier calculations, providing good specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like graph_traverse or temporal_walk, which have similar exploration purposes.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use when you need to explore context around a specific task, fact, or decision,' giving clear context for usage. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient for appropriate use cases.

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