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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it mentions the tool's dependency on System.Windows.Forms ('no external modules needed'), notes that Focus Assist can suppress notifications, and clarifies the return behavior ('returns ok:true in that case'). However, it lacks details on error handling or timeout behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the purpose clearly. Each subsequent sentence adds valuable context (usage timing, caveats, implementation details) without redundancy, making it efficient 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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage, caveats, and dependencies. However, it lacks information on the return format (beyond ok:true) and potential errors, which could be useful for an agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the title and body parameters fully. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or formatting tips, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 ('Show a Windows system tray balloon notification') and the resource ('to alert the user'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_click_element or keyboard_type by focusing on system notifications rather than browser or input automation.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use at the end of a long-running task so the user knows it finished without watching the screen') and provides a caveat about when it might not work effectively ('Focus Assist (Do Not Disturb) mode suppresses balloon tips'), offering clear context for usage versus alternatives.

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