switch_to_window_by_title

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adequately describes the default case-insensitive substring matching and the effect of the 'exact' parameter. However, it omits important behavioral details such as what happens if no matching window is found, whether the operation is synchronous, or any potential side effects.

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 consists of two sentences, is front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence earns its place—first states the action, then explains matching behavior and the optional parameter.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key usage aspects (matching strategy, exact vs substring). It lacks details on error handling (e.g., no match, multiple matches) or return value, but these are less critical for a focus-switching action. The description is mostly complete for practical use.

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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters. The description adds slight value by explaining the default matching behavior ('substring match') and how 'exact' modifies it, but these details largely echo the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Switch focus to a window by its title' with a specific verb and resource. It explains the default substring matching behavior, making the tool's function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'switch_to_window' (which likely uses a window handle), so differentiation relies on the name alone.

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 explains when to use the tool (by title) and describes the optional 'exact' parameter for stricter matching. It implies use when you have a partial or full window title, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if you have a handle instead) or mention alternatives among siblings.

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