window_focus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully disclose that matching is partial and case-insensitive, and it states the foreground/focus effect. However, it does not mention failure behavior, permission requirements, or side effects on other windows, leaving notable gaps.

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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the important matching caveat follows immediately. 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the action, target, and name-matching semantics. It could be more complete with a note on prerequisites or failure behavior, but the essential calling information is present.

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 already documents appName fully with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable parameter-relevant semantics by stating that matching is partial and case-insensitive, which affects how appName should be provided and interpreted.

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 and resource: 'Bring an application to the foreground and focus it.' It clearly states the target and action, and the partial case-insensitive matching detail helps distinguish it from sibling tools like window_list, window_resize, and window_minimize.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as window_list for discovering names or accessibility_click for interacting with specific UI elements. The description implies its use for focusing an app, but does not provide exclusions or routing to sibling tools.

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