Focus Window

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the Accessibility permission requirement, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations, but does not describe side effects, error behavior, or what happens if permission is missing.

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 two short sentences: the first states the action, the second states the requirement. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains zero fluff or repetition.

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?

Given a simple single-parameter tool with schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate. However, with no output schema, it does not mention return values or failure modes. The permission requirement is useful, but the lack of success/error behavior leaves a gap in completeness for an agent.

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 provides 100% coverage of the single parameter, windowHandle, with a clear description ('A windowHandle from window_list or window_get_active'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('activate') and resource ('a window's owning app') plus the outcome ('raise the window'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like window_close or window_set_state. It also mentions the prerequisite permission, reinforcing its purpose.

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 description implies usage by stating its core function and the required Accessibility permission, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The permission note gives some context, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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