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 clearly describes what information is returned (display attributes and cursor position) and hints at the tool's purpose for targeting displays. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like whether this is a real-time snapshot, if it requires specific permissions, or how frequently it can be called.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and enumerates returned data. The second sentence provides usage context. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and application.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by specifying what information is returned and how it can be used. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., JSON structure, array of displays) or potential limitations, leaving some gaps for the agent to infer.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds value by explaining the output's purpose (providing monitorId for dock_window targeting) and listing the specific information returned, which goes beyond the empty parameter 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 verb ('Return') and resource ('all connected display info') with specific attributes listed (resolution, position, DPI scaling, cursor position). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_cursor_position by providing comprehensive display information rather than just cursor position.

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 ('to target a specific display in dock_window') by mentioning monitorId from the response. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like get_cursor_position for just cursor information.

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