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 and does so effectively. It discloses key behavioral traits: that selectors are CDP-generated snapshots requiring re-call after page changes, input text reflects hint text over typed values, and it returns state for ARIA controls. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs, but covers most critical operational aspects.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: usage guidance, output details, caveats, and workarounds. It could be slightly more concise by combining some clauses, but overall it's well-structured with minimal waste.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides substantial context about what the tool does, when to use it, behavioral caveats, and workarounds. It doesn't fully describe the return format structure, but covers most aspects needed for effective use. The completeness is good but not perfect for a tool with this parameter count.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about scope ('CSS subsection') and mentions the tool's purpose which implies parameter usage, but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what's in the schema descriptions. 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 specific action ('List all interactive elements'), resources targeted ('links, buttons, inputs, ARIA controls'), and output details ('CSS selectors, visible text or value for inputs, and viewport status'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_click_element (used after this tool) and screenshot (prefer this over screenshot for structured output).

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('use before browser_click_element to discover stable selectors, and prefer this over screenshot when verifying button/toggle state after submission') and when not to use it ('no image tokens, structured output'). It also mentions alternatives like browser_eval for reading actual typed content, providing clear contextual guidance.

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