macOS GUI Control MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Move') but doesn't explain what coordinate system is used (e.g., screen pixels, relative positioning), whether it requires specific permissions, potential side effects (e.g., window focus changes), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 extremely concise—a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core action. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the coordinate system, error handling, or what happens if the window isn't found. For a tool that changes system state, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'position' which loosely relates to x and y, but provides no details on units, coordinate origin, or valid ranges. The app_name parameter is not addressed at all. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the bare schema names imply.

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 action ('Move') and resource ('application window to position'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like window_focus (focusing) and window_resize (resizing), though it doesn't explicitly mention these differences. The description is specific but could be slightly more precise about what 'position' entails.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like window_focus or window_resize, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., window must be open) or context (e.g., coordinate system). It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic action.

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