computer_activate_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the primary effect—foreground and focus—but does not cover edge cases such as minimized windows, windows on other desktops, failure conditions, or permission requirements. The core behavior is clear, but behavioral detail is minimal.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundant information. It communicates the action and the object clearly and efficiently.

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, the description is mostly sufficient: it states what the tool does and an output schema exists. However, it lacks guidance on how to find a window_id and does not explain behavior for non-obvious cases like minimized or hidden windows.

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 covers the single parameter with a clear description: 'Window identifier' provides 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Bring a window to the foreground and focus it.' This clearly states the tool's purpose and semantically distinguishes it from siblings like get_active_window, minimize_window, close_window, and get_window_position.

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 or when to prefer an alternative. It does not mention how to obtain a valid window_id, whether this works on minimized windows, or how this relates to sibling tools such as get_active_window or set_window_position.

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