remote_pane_focus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without explaining side effects, prerequisites, or error behavior. It does not mention whether switching focus is non-destructive, what happens to the previous focus, or any required session state.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple parameter set, though it could benefit from more context without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a sparse description. It does not explain what happens on success or failure, nor does it situate the tool among the many pane-related siblings. The description is bare-bones and leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer 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 schema already provides paneId with the description 'Pane ID to focus', achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no further meaning or context for the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Switch to a specific pane' clearly states the action (switching focus) and the target (a specific pane), using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like remote_pane_next or remote_pane_list, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remote_pane_next for sequential navigation or remote_pane_list for viewing panes. The word 'specific' implies using an explicit paneId, but the description does not offer any exclusions or context.

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