window_focus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses case-insensitive matching, substring matching (title contains text), and error behavior when no matching window is found. This is strong behavioral detail, though it does not mention behaviors like minimizing or restoring windows if minimized.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage guidance, examples, and error behavior. Every sentence serves a purpose without 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, matching behavior, and error handling, all in a compact form. No critical information is missing given the tool's simplicity.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds value by explaining the matching semantics (case-insensitive, contains text) and giving examples. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema's description.

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 with a specific verb ('Bring a window to the foreground') and resource ('window'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on window focus, which is unique among the provided siblings. The method (matching title or process name) is also explicitly mentioned.

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?

It says to use the tool 'before sending keys or interacting with it,' which provides clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient given the sibling set, and it implies a workflow with key_type.

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