onda_tab_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 only states the basic action ('switch to/focus') but does not disclose side effects, such as whether the tab must already exist, what happens if the ID is invalid, whether focusing is asynchronous, or if it is idempotent. For a state-changing tool, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and resource. Every word is useful, with no wasted verbosity or structural issues.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose. However, it lacks context about expected behavior on failure (e.g., invalid ID), return value, or any side effects. While the tool is simple, the absence of annotations means the description should have provided at least minimal behavioral context, leaving a clear 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 coverage is 100%: the 'id' parameter is described as 'Tab ID to focus.' The description adds 'by ID' which is redundant. As baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description provides no additional semantic value beyond the schema, this score is appropriate.

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 'Switch to (focus) a specific tab by ID.' clearly states the action (switch/focus) and the resource (a tab), with the method (by ID). This succinctly distinguishes it from sibling focus tools for panes, windows, and workspaces, providing strong purpose clarity.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool: when a user wants to focus a specific tab by its ID. It clearly separates this from tab list/new/close operations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use onda_pane_focus for panes'), so it falls short of a 5.

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