context_focus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutating action ('Set') and the effect ('optimizes which context is loaded'), but it does not mention persistence, reversibility, side effects on other context tools, or return values. This is acceptable but minimal for a setter.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the action, the second provides the usage context. No wasted words, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence 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 setter with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the what and when. However, it lacks details on behavioral scope (e.g., whether focus persists, affects other context tools) and interaction with the sibling tools. It is functional but leaves the agent to infer some implications.

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%, with both parameters (task, modules) having descriptions. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides the necessary meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not compensate or enhance what the schema already supplies.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the current work focus.' It also explains the benefit ('optimizes which context is loaded') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the 'focus' action rather than adding, searching, or modifying context entries.

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?

Provides a clear usage context: 'Call this when switching between different areas of the project.' This tells the agent when to use it, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not conditions. The sibling tool names imply alternatives, making the guidance sufficient but not exhaustive.

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