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 key behavioral traits: it returns only top-level visible windows (excluding child windows and system tray items), explains the meaning of zOrder and isActive, and notes that windows on other virtual desktops cannot be interacted with. This covers scope, limitations, and interaction constraints clearly.

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 efficiently structured: the first sentence states the purpose and key attributes, followed by explanatory details (zOrder, isActive, etc.), usage guidance, and caveats. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and concise.

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 (listing windows with multiple attributes), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of covering behavior, usage, and limitations. It explains what data is returned and caveats like exclusions. However, it does not detail the exact return format (e.g., structure of the output), which could be helpful since there's no output schema.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied for 0 parameters, as the description does not need to compensate for any gaps.

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 ('List all visible windows') and resource ('windows'), with detailed attributes listed (titles, screen positions, Z-order, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like get_active_window by covering all windows, not just the active one, and from screenshot tools by explaining its use for window identification before capture.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use before screenshot to determine whether a specific window needs capturing'), which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like screenshot or get_active_window. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives beyond the implied context.

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