focus

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It states only the core action and the absence of clicking, but does not mention side effects such as potential scroll-into-view, focus events firing, or behavior when the element is not visible. This is a minimal disclosure; agents are left to infer behavioral consequences.

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 sentence with no filler. The verb and scope are front-loaded, and the clarifying parenthetical adds key information without verbosity.

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 simple low-level interaction tool, the description conveys the primary operation. However, it omits any context about typical usage patterns, side effects, or what the tool returns (if anything). Given the lack of annotations and output schema, slightly more detail could be expected, but the core call is already actionable.

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 100%, and the description itself adds no extra parameter meaning. It does not elaborate on target formats, session handling, or timeout semantics, which are already covered by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the explanatory work.

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?

Description clearly states the action (focus) on a specific resource (an element), and the parenthetical 'without clicking' distinguishes it from sibling click and interaction tools. Even without naming a sibling, the exclusion of clicking makes the scope unambiguous.

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 phrase '(without clicking)' implies a usage scenario: use this when you need to focus without triggering a click. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over hover, click, or other alternatives, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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