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 what the tool does but lacks critical details: whether this requires VNC session focus, if it simulates keystrokes or pastes text, potential delays between lines, error handling for invalid input, or side effects like overwriting existing text. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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—a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects: how the tool interacts with VNC (e.g., focus requirements), what happens on execution (e.g., success/failure indicators), or error conditions. For a tool that likely involves remote input simulation, this leaves too much undefined.

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%, with the parameter 'lines' fully documented in the schema as an array of strings. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying that lines are 'separated by newlines', which is somewhat redundant with the array structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 clearly states the action ('type multiple lines of text') and resource ('text'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'vnc_type_text', which likely types single lines, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.

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_type_text'. It mentions 'multiple lines' but doesn't clarify if this is for bulk input, specific applications, or how it differs functionally from typing lines individually with other tools.

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