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 explain what 'move mouse' entails in a VNC context—e.g., whether it's immediate, if it requires a connected session, what happens on error, or if it affects other operations. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 (a mutation operation in a VNC context), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like session requirements, error handling, or how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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%, with both parameters ('x' and 'y') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying coordinates are used, which the schema already covers. 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 action ('Move mouse') and the target ('to specified coordinates'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'vnc_click' (which might involve mouse movement plus clicking), so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

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 like 'vnc_click' for clicking after moving, or how it relates to other VNC operations. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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