niri_focus_workspace

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions switching the active workspace but does not clarify side effects, such as whether the focused window changes, what happens if the workspace reference is invalid, or whether the operation requires existing workspaces. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a mutation 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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and parameter options. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema, the description covers the core operation and parameter format. However, it omits important contextual details such as error behavior (e.g., what happens if the workspace does not exist) and any relationship to other tools like niri_get_workspaces, leaving the agent to assume behavior.

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 input schema provides a bare 'workspace_ref' string with zero description, but the tool description compensates by specifying that it accepts an index number (e.g., '1', '2', '3') or a workspace name. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, though it does not elaborate on name formats or behavior when multiple matches exist.

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's function: 'Switch active workspace in Niri' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like niri_focus_window and niri_move_window_to_workspace by focusing on workspace activation rather than window manipulation.

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 use case—switching workspaces—but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites such as querying available workspaces via niri_get_workspaces. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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