onda_pane_focus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action (focus/activate) but does not provide additional context such as prerequisites, side effects on other panes, or error behavior for invalid IDs.

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 concise sentence, 'Focus (activate) a specific pane by its ID.' It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not mention how to obtain the pane ID or any state changes beyond focusing. A short note referring to onda_pane_list would improve completeness.

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 schema already fully documents the 'id' parameter with the description 'Pane ID to focus.' The description's 'by its ID' adds no new meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 (activates) a specific pane by its ID. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other focus tools like onda_workspace_focus and onda_tab_focus.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to focus a pane), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No guidance is provided on the relationship with sibling tools such as onda_pane_list or onda_pane_split.

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