focus_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it delivers the key behavioral trait: 'This tool only changes focus/activation; it does not change values.' This prevents an agent from assuming the call mutates data. It does not cover failure modes or visibility requirements, but for a focus-only operation the disclosed side-effect boundary is the most important context.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the core action is front-loaded, the side-effect boundary is stated next, and the alternative/sibling routing comes last. Every sentence earns its place and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 focus tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, side-effect boundary, and a usage pattern. However, with 0% parameter coverage across four locator-like parameters, the agent is left guessing how name/type/title identify the object. The behavior when the object is not found is also unaddressed, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 never explains what name, type, title, or session_id mean or how they identify the target object. It hints at identification by 'visible caption' and mentions 'the page object', but does not map these concepts to the four parameters. This is a clear gap for a schema with zero parameter documentation.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Move focus to a UI object in the active test client window.' It clearly differentiates from set_field_value by explicitly noting it does not change values, and the radio/dropdown guidance names the sibling to use instead. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'For radio buttons and dropdowns use set_field_value with the visible caption.' It also provides a concrete usage pattern: 'To switch to an inactive page, focus the page object first, then interact with its children.' Both the condition and the alternative are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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