focus_order

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: returns data, honors focus traps, excludes disabled controls, and does not drive the UI. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or performance characteristics. Still, provides sufficient transparency for a read-only query tool.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. Every sentence adds meaningful information about the tool's function and behavior.

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?

Adequate but incomplete: return format is implied but not explicit ('refs... in order'). Output schema exists but is not shown; description suffices for that. However, parameter coverage is lacking for size and theme, making it less complete for a tool with 3 parameters.

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 coverage is low (33%) with only 'description' documented in schema. The tool description adds no further detail for 'size' or 'theme', leaving them unexplained. The description does reiterate the 'description' parameter's purpose but does not compensate for missing parameter info.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns keyboard focus order (Tab cycle refs) honoring modal focus traps and excluding disabled controls. Distinguishes from sibling tools like check_a11y by specifying it's about focus order and not driving the UI.

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?

Implies use case for verifying tab order and reachability, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., check_a11y might also focus on accessibility). No when-not-to-use or alternative tool names mentioned.

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