desktop-touch-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return data (title, hwnd, bounds) but does not mention potential limitations such as platform-specific behavior, permissions required to access window information, or error conditions (e.g., if no window is focused). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in edge cases.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Return the title, hwnd, and bounds') and avoids any redundant or verbose language. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose, making it highly concise 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 complexity (simple read operation with no parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally complete. It specifies what data is returned but does not detail the format or structure of the return values, which could be important for an AI agent to interpret the results correctly. This leaves room for improvement in contextual coverage.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as no parameters are present, and the description adequately explains what the tool does without unnecessary parameter details.

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') and the exact resources being retrieved ('the title, hwnd, and bounds of the currently focused window'). It precisely distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_windows' (which likely returns multiple windows) and 'focus_window' (which changes focus rather than retrieving information).

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 implies usage context by specifying 'currently focused window,' suggesting it should be used when information about the active foreground window is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_windows' or 'get_context,' nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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