window_focus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses a meaningful trait: stale window refs are re-resolved by pid + fuzzy title. This adds value beyond the schema. Minor gaps include no mention of failure behavior or side effects, but for a focus/raise action this is sufficient.

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 compact: two sentences that front-load the action and include the key fallback behavior. No redundant words or repetition of schema fields.

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's relative simplicity (no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core behavior and adds the stale-ref handling detail. It could mention failure cases or prerequisites, but as a standalone description it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly in most scenarios.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by explaining the roles of window_ref, app, and title_match ('by window_ref, or by app and/or title_match'). However, it lacks details on expected formats (e.g., app name vs bundle ID, title_match pattern), so it only partially compensates for the absent schema descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('Focus (raise)') and a clear resource (a window), and specifies the two modes of selection: by window_ref or by app/title_match. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like window_list and window_manage, which have different purposes.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool (to focus/raise a window) and explains the two input methods (ref vs app/title_match). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like window_manage, so it falls short of a direct exclusion or alternative guidance.

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