focus_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it only says a focus change gets recorded. It does not say whether recording is idempotent, whether duplicate events are deduplicated, whether it requires an active session/workspace, or what happens to the record afterward. For a mutation/logging tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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 filler, and the examples earn their place by narrowing scope. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the under-specification penalized elsewhere rather than being a virtue by itself.

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?

With 4 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description would need to do much more work. As written it leaves field meanings, required-vs-optional expectations, and behavioral guarantees entirely to the agent's guesswork.

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?

Four parameters (actor, object_id, workspace, object_type) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies no semantics for any of them. The examples hint at 'workspace' and 'object' concepts but never map them to named fields or formats, so the schema gap is left entirely unmitigated.

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+resource ('记录焦点变化') and disambiguates with concrete examples (page switch / project switch / selected fragment), which is enough to separate it from siblings like recent_events or situation_report. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 parenthetical examples imply the kind of events to log, but there is no statement of when to call this versus report_done or situation_report, nor any prerequisite or timing guidance. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.

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