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 so effectively. It discloses key behavioral traits: parallel execution for latency optimization, resetting of diffMode buffer for subsequent operations, and caveats about thumbnail scaling. However, it doesn't mention error handling or permission requirements, leaving minor 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 well-structured with clear sections (Purpose, Details, Prefer, Caveats) and front-loaded key information. Most sentences earn their place, though some technical details like 'P-frame' could be simplified for brevity without losing clarity.

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 (capturing multiple data types) and lack of output schema, the description does a strong job explaining what the tool returns (layouts, thumbnails, actionable elements). It covers performance characteristics and integration with other tools, but doesn't detail the exact structure of the return data, which would be helpful 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 fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'thumbnailMaxDimension' affects image quality or when to toggle 'includeUiSummary'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs and resources: 'returns display layouts, all window thumbnails (WebP), and per-window actionable element lists with clickAt coords.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'screenshot' by emphasizing comprehensive orientation versus incremental updates.

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 at session start or after major workspace changes') and when to prefer alternatives ('Use screenshot(detail='meta') for cheap re-orientation within a session' and 'Use screenshot(detail='text', windowTitle=X) for a single-window update'). It clearly differentiates usage contexts.

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