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 behaviors: it returns text content, handles non-text payloads by returning an empty string without error, and implies it's a read-only operation. However, it doesn't cover aspects like permissions, rate limits, or error conditions beyond the non-text case.

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 the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and caveats. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral caveats. However, it could be slightly more complete by mentioning potential errors or system dependencies, though not strictly necessary for this simple tool.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and behavior. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist.

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 ('Return the current text content') and resource ('Windows clipboard'), distinguishing it from its sibling 'clipboard_write' which writes to the clipboard. It explicitly identifies what it does without being 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use it ('after the user copies something to inspect it' or 'to retrieve text written by clipboard_write'), including a direct reference to an alternative sibling tool ('clipboard_write'). This clearly defines the context and alternatives.

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