desktop-touch-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: truncation behavior ('truncated to maxLength characters'), default behavior ('document.body when no selector is given'), and context inclusion ('append activeTab and readyState context'). However, it lacks details on error handling, performance implications, or what 'insufficient for inspecting page structure' means operationally.

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 front-loaded with core functionality in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and structured for clarity.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and key behavioral aspects. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return format or error cases, though the usage guidance partially compensates.

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 adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning truncation and default selector behavior, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage nuances for parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Return the HTML of a DOM element') and resources ('DOM element', 'document.body'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling 'browser_get_interactive' by specifying when to use this tool instead. It provides clear scope and differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use when browser_get_interactive is insufficient for inspecting page structure'), providing clear guidance on alternatives and context. It helps the agent choose between sibling tools effectively.

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