browser_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 clearly states the tool does not read or mutate the page, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether focus fails silently if the tab is not shared, whether it toggles focus, or any error conditions. Additional context would improve 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?

The description is a single 11-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action and efficiently conveys the core purpose and key non-behaviors. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and safety profile (no read/mutate). However, it omits explanation of the parameter, prerequisites (what qualifies as 'explicitly shared'), error handling, and return behavior, leaving gaps for an AI agent that needs to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the sole parameter 'collaboration_id' at all. It only vaguely references 'one explicitly shared tab' without linking to the parameter. The agent must infer meaning solely from the parameter name and its pattern, which is insufficient for a tool that requires correct identification of a shared tab.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Focus' and the resource 'one explicitly shared tab', and clarifies it does not read or mutate the page. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_open (opens new tab), browser_tabs (list tabs), and browser_click (interacts), making its purpose highly specific and clear.

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 the tool is for bringing a shared tab into focus without side effects, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., browser_open for creating a new focused tab, or browser_click to bring a tab into focus via interaction). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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