Desktop Focus Window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and supplies only the foregrounding effect. It does not say what happens when a window is minimized, whether focusing restores or raises it, what occurs if the target is not found, or whether OS-level permissions are needed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words and a clear action at the start. Its brevity is efficient, though for a parameterized desktop-action tool it edges toward under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with zero param coverage, no annotations, and two optional-but-ambiguous parameters, the description leaves out what an agent needs to invoke the tool 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%, so the description must compensate, but it only gestures at 'application or window' without mapping that to app vs window_id. It never explains the empty-string defaults, whether the two are mutually exclusive, which takes precedence when both are supplied, or the expected window_id format.

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?

States a specific verb ('bring to the foreground and focus') and resource ('an application or window'), so the effect is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as desktop_launch, desktop_list_windows, or desktop_snapshot, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent cannot tell from the description whether it should launch the app first, list windows to obtain a window_id, or use this tool after desktop_find.

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