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 the core behavior (draining buffered events with incremental polling) and the drain parameter's effect (consuming vs. peeking). However, it lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the subscription is invalid, which are important for a polling tool.

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 main purpose in the first sentence and adds clarifying details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 (polling with buffered events), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the core functionality and parameters. However, it lacks information on return values (e.g., event format, pagination) and error handling, which would be needed for full completeness in this context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'incremental polling' in relation to sinceMs, but does not provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Drain buffered events') and resource ('for a subscription'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like events_list (which lists events) and events_subscribe (which creates subscriptions). It precisely defines the tool's function without being vague or 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 clear context for when to use this tool ('incremental polling') and implies usage with events_subscribe (via the subscriptionId parameter reference). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like events_list, leaving some room for improvement in sibling differentiation.

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