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 word-level text with screen-pixel coordinates, mentions performance caveats (~1s cold-start), and specifies prerequisites (requires Windows OCR language pack). However, it lacks details on error handling or output format specifics, leaving some gaps.

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, followed by usage guidelines and caveats. Every sentence adds value—no wasted words. It efficiently covers functionality, context, and limitations in a compact, well-structured format.

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 (OCR with coordinates, performance caveats, prerequisites) and no annotations or output schema, the description does a strong job. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral traits. However, without an output schema, it could better explain the return format (e.g., structure of text and coordinates), leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the default language ('ja'), clarifies that 'language' uses BCP-47 tags, and implies 'region' is for sub-region OCR. This provides useful semantic guidance, though it doesn't fully detail the 'region' object structure.

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 performs Windows OCR on a window to extract word-level text with clickable coordinates. It specifically distinguishes this from the sibling 'screenshot' tool by explaining this is for forcing OCR unconditionally when UIA fails, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 ('when UIA returns no actionable elements') and when not to use it (screenshot auto-falls back to OCR by default). It names the alternative tool ('screenshot') and specifies this should be called 'only when forcing OCR unconditionally,' offering clear context for selection.

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