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. It discloses the tool's read-only behavior (returning coordinates) and output format (virtual screen coordinates), but does not mention potential limitations like refresh rates, coordinate system details, or error conditions. It adds basic context but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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 core functionality ('Return the current mouse cursor position') and adds necessary precision ('in virtual screen coordinates'). There is zero wasted text, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and the coordinate system, but could benefit from mentioning return format (e.g., x,y coordinates) or usage examples. However, for a simple retrieval tool, it provides adequate 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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately omits parameter details, focusing on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist to document.

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 resource ('current mouse cursor position'), with precise scope ('in virtual screen coordinates'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mouse_move or get_active_window by focusing solely on cursor position retrieval without movement or window context.

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 for obtaining cursor coordinates, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_screen_info (which might provide broader screen data) or mouse_move (which changes position). It provides clear context for coordinate retrieval but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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