activate_window

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation itself. It does not explain what happens when no window matches, how multiple criteria are resolved, whether it waits for the window, or what error behavior to expect.

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 with no filler. It efficiently communicates the action and the primary selection mechanisms, even though other dimensions carry the cost of its brevity.

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 tool with four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is not complete enough to support confident invocation. An agent would still need to infer parameter precedence, failure behavior, session scoping, and when to choose a sibling window-related tool instead.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only names three of four parameters as selector modes. It does not clarify precedence or combination of name, title, and index, and it silently omits session_id and its role in targeting the window.

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 action ('Activate/switch to') and the resource ('tested 1C client window'), and specifies that selection is by index, title, or name. It is distinguishable from nearby siblings like active_window, windows_list, and goto_next_window, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 a 1C client window needs to be brought forward. However, it provides no explicit when-not guidance, no alternative tool names, and no suggestions like 'use active_window to read the current window' or 'use windows_list to find an index.'

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