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 traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Returns'), provides performance metadata, and has stable results per server session. However, it doesn't explicitly mention error handling or rate limits, though the 'once per session' guidance mitigates this.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by subsystem details, usage guidelines, and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff—making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (diagnostic metadata with performance details) and lack of output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the returned values, usage context, and stability. A minor gap is the absence of explicit error scenarios or output format details, but the guidance on user-facing behavior compensates well.

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 focuses on output semantics, explaining what the returned values mean (e.g., 'native' vs. 'powershell' for uia, performance implications). This adds meaningful context beyond the empty schema.

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: 'Returns which backend engine is active for each subsystem.' It specifies the verb ('Returns') and resource ('backend engine status'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on diagnostic metadata rather than UI automation actions like browser_click_element or screenshot.

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 usage guidelines: 'Call once per session if you need to know which path is active; the result is stable for the lifetime of the server process.' It also specifies when not to use it: 'do not surface these values to the user unless they ask about performance or troubleshooting.' This gives clear context and exclusions.

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