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: the tool returns both a screenshot and a child element tree, requires UIA technology, works with specific applications, and has prerequisites for element identification. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics like execution time or potential errors, which could be useful for an agent.

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 in three sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides context and prerequisites, and the third specifies parameter requirements. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete—it covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe the output format (e.g., what the 'child element tree' looks like), which could be important for an agent to interpret results, especially without an 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it only reinforces that 'At least one of name, automationId, or controlType must be provided,' which is already implied by the schema's structure. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Return a high-resolution screenshot of a specific element's region plus its child element tree') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'screenshot' (which captures full screens) and 'get_ui_elements' (which discovers elements without screenshots). It explicitly mentions the resource (element region) and additional output (child element tree).

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 get_ui_elements first to discover element names or automationIds' and 'Requires UIA — works with native apps, Chrome/Edge, VS Code.' It also specifies prerequisites: 'At least one of name, automationId, or controlType must be provided.' This clearly differentiates it from alternatives like 'screenshot' or 'get_ui_elements'.

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