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. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns a 'ring buffer' (implying fixed-size, overwriting old entries), specifies 'last 20 entries' as a limit, and lists the data fields included. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or performance aspects, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 guidelines. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, avoiding unnecessary elaboration.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage, and key behavior. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return format (e.g., structure of entries) or error handling, but it's sufficient for basic understanding.

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 100% description coverage, documenting the parameter 'n' with its type, default, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'ring buffer' behavior in relation to 'n'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 recent action history') and resource ('ring buffer, last 20 entries'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'events_list' or 'get_context' by focusing on action history rather than events or current context. It specifies the data fields returned (tool name, argsDigest, post-state, timestamp), making the purpose explicit and distinct.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to reconstruct context after model interruption or verify a step occurred.' This provides clear context for usage, distinguishing it from alternatives like 'events_list' (for event monitoring) or 'get_context' (for current state), and includes practical scenarios without misleading guidance.

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