desktop-touch-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing idempotent behavior ('if a CDP endpoint is already live on the target port, returns immediately without spawning'), fallback logic ('tries chrome → edge → brave'), default values, and important caveats about existing Chrome sessions. Could mention more about error conditions or timeout behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with core purpose, followed by idempotency, defaults, usage guidance, and caveats. Every sentence earns its place with essential information. No redundant or verbose language.

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 complex browser launch tool with 5 parameters and no annotations/output schema, the description provides good behavioral context, idempotency, defaults, and caveats. Could be more complete by mentioning what happens on failure or the format of return values (though no output schema exists).

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about the 'url' parameter ('Pass url to open a specific page on launch') and implies the purpose of launching with debugging, but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 ('Launch Chrome/Edge/Brave in CDP debug mode and wait until the DevTools endpoint is ready') and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'follow with browser_connect to get tab IDs', showing it's the initial browser setup tool rather than interaction tools like browser_click_element or browser_navigate.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use ('Pass url to open a specific page on launch; follow with browser_connect to get tab IDs') and when not to use ('A Chrome session started without --remote-debugging-port cannot be taken over — close it first or use a separate profile'). Also distinguishes from browser_connect as the initial setup step.

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