mcp-vnc

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 states the action but doesn't describe what happens after the click (e.g., whether it triggers UI events, waits for response, or has side effects like opening menus). It also omits details like error conditions (e.g., invalid coordinates), performance aspects, or permission requirements for VNC operations. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 at four words, front-loading the core action without unnecessary elaboration. Every word ('Click at specified coordinates') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, with zero waste or redundant phrasing. It efficiently communicates the essence in a single, clear sentence.

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 (interactive VNC operation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what the click does in the VNC session, error handling, or return values. While concise, it lacks depth needed for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results, especially compared to siblings with more context (e.g., vnc_screenshot implies visual output).

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 input schema fully documents all parameters (x, y, button, double) with descriptions, enums, and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying coordinates are needed. It doesn't explain coordinate systems (e.g., screen pixels), button semantics, or double-click behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 'Click at specified coordinates' clearly states the action (click) and target (coordinates), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like vnc_move_mouse (move without click) and vnc_key_press (keyboard action), though it doesn't explicitly mention the VNC context or differentiate from vnc_type_text. The verb+resource combination is specific but could be slightly more precise about the interface.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an active VNC session), contrast with siblings like vnc_move_mouse for positioning without clicking, or specify scenarios where clicking is appropriate (e.g., interacting with GUI elements). Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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