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 indicates the tool closes connections to release resources, which implies a cleanup operation, but lacks details on error handling, side effects (e.g., impact on other tools), or performance considerations. It adds some context but leaves gaps in behavioral traits.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and usage guidelines without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse and apply.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete for its purpose. It covers what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details on return values or error cases, which could be helpful despite the absence of an output schema. It's adequate but has minor gaps.

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 100%, with the parameter 'port' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's details, such as explaining why the port matters or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 ('Close cached CDP WebSocket sessions') and resource ('for a port'), distinguishing it from siblings like browser_connect (which establishes connections) and browser_launch (which starts browsers). It precisely identifies what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Call when browser interaction is complete to release connections'), providing clear context for its application. This directly guides the agent on timing and purpose, distinguishing it from alternatives that manage active browser sessions.

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