desktop-touch-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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it establishes a CDP connection, returns tab information, and explains that the connection is per-process with a caveat about Chrome restarts requiring reconnection. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, timeout behavior, or authentication requirements.

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 efficiently structured with zero wasted sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, provides essential usage instructions, explains the return value, and includes important caveats—all in three concise sentences that each earn their 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 connection-establishing tool with no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what the tool returns (tabs array with id, url, title) and how to use that output (pass tabId to other tools). The caveat about CDP connection persistence adds important context. However, without annotations or output schema, some behavioral aspects like error handling remain unspecified.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'port' parameter with its constraints and default. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Connect to Chrome/Edge'), resource ('running with --remote-debugging-port'), and outcome ('return open tab IDs'). It explicitly distinguishes this as a prerequisite tool that must be called before all other browser_* tools, differentiating it from siblings like browser_launch.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('required before all other browser_* tools') and when not to use it (if Chrome restarts, call again). It also mentions an alternative method ('Launch with browser_launch() or manually') for establishing the connection.

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