Set focus to an active lane (max 2) and register it for tracking. Prevents exceeding the limit by failing when a third active lane is requested.
Set focus and register an ACTIVE lane (max 2). Fails if a third ACTIVE is requested.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | ||
| focus_id | Yes | ||
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key behavior beyond the schema: registering an ACTIVE lane is limited to 2, and a third request fails. However, with no annotations, it does not explain side effects, whether existing focus is replaced, or what 'lane' means operationally.
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?
One front-loaded sentence states the core operation and its critical constraint with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 three parameters, no annotations, and many lifecycle-focused siblings, the description omits when to call it, how active lanes are relinquished, and what happens to prior focus. The output schema may cover return values, but operational context remains thin.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain focus_id, label, or project_path. The names are suggestive, but the description adds no parameter-specific meaning to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.
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 action—'Set focus'—and clarifies it also registers an ACTIVE lane with an explicit max of 2. The failure condition on a third ACTIVE request adds useful specificity, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate against sibling tools.
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 given on when to use this tool instead of sibling tools like hai_park, hai_recover, or hai_status. The max-2/failure statement is a behavioral constraint, not usage context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.