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 key behavioral traits: the tool returns coordinates captured at call time, warns about potential staleness due to page reflows, and notes compatibility with mouse_click. However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance characteristics, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps.

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 three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, providing usage guidelines, and warning about caveats. There's no wasted language, and key information is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (finding elements and returning coordinates), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool does, when to use it, and important limitations. However, it doesn't describe the return value format or error conditions, which would be helpful since there's no output schema.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but it doesn't need to since the schema provides complete coverage. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Find a DOM element by CSS selector and return its physical screen coordinates — compatible directly with mouse_click.' It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('DOM element'), and output ('physical screen coordinates'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_click_element and browser_get_interactive by explaining their different use cases.

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 versus alternatives: 'Prefer browser_click_element to find+click in one step. Prefer browser_get_interactive to discover selectors.' It also includes caveats about stale coordinates if the page reflows before mouse_click, helping the agent understand when not to rely on the output.

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