focus_element

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

The annotations declare idempotentHint: true, which is already transparent. The description adds minor behavioral context (UIA Focus pattern, Windows-specific terminology) but does not elaborate on potential side effects (e.g., what happens if element is not interactable) or permissions needed. With annotations covering the key trait, the description's additional value is limited.

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 sentences with zero redundancy: the first sentence states the core action, and the second provides critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 the tool has one parameter, idempotentHint annotation, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context (action, prerequisite, platform hint). It could be slightly more complete by noting that the element must already be found, but that is implied by elementId referencing a prior find_element result, which the schema's description already states.

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 100%, and the description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the single parameter (elementId). The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter, and the description offers no extra insight.

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 clearly states the tool 'set focus to an element' via a specific pattern (UIA Focus, windows: setFocus), providing both the action and the resource (an element). It distinguishes itself from siblings like click_element or send_keys by being a prerequisite for keyboard interactions, making its purpose specific and non-overlapping.

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 explicitly states 'Required before keyboard-driven interactions such as send_keys on a specific control', giving clear guidance on when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools for unrelated contexts, missing the full picture of exclusions.

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