desktop-touch-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions scrolling at coordinates or current position, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific window focus, what happens if coordinates are outside screen bounds, whether scrolling is smooth or instant, what happens with the 'speed' parameter, or whether this tool modifies system state. For a UI automation tool with 7 parameters, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place: it states the action, the coordinate options, and the two most critical parameters with their constraints. There's zero waste or redundancy in this single-sentence description.

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 complexity of a 7-parameter UI automation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success/failure, new position, etc.), doesn't mention error conditions, doesn't describe the scrolling behavior in detail, and doesn't provide context about coordinate systems or window targeting. For a tool with this many parameters and no structured safety annotations, the description should do more heavy lifting.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the direction enum values and default amount, but doesn't explain the interaction between coordinates, cursor movement, and scrolling. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have added more context about parameter relationships.

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: 'Scroll at specified coordinates (or current cursor position)' with specific parameters for direction and amount. It distinguishes itself from other scrolling tools like 'scroll_capture' and 'scroll_to_element' by focusing on coordinate-based scrolling rather than element-based or capture scrolling. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'smart_scroll' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'scroll_to_element' (for element-based scrolling), 'scroll_capture' (for screenshot scrolling), or 'smart_scroll' (which might have intelligent scrolling behavior). There's also no mention of prerequisites like needing a browser connection or active window context.

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