mcp-vnc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('type text string') but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this simulates keyboard input in a VNC session, potential delays or rate limits, error conditions (e.g., if VNC is disconnected), or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and misses key operational 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 with just three words, front-loading the core action ('Type text string'). There is zero wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's function. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover the VNC context, behavioral traits (e.g., how typing is simulated), error handling, or differentiation from siblings. For a tool that interacts with a remote system, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 fully documents the 'text' and 'enter' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain that 'text' is typed as a single line or clarify the 'enter' parameter's effect). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 'Type text string' states the basic action but is vague about scope and context. It specifies typing text but doesn't clarify this is for VNC remote control or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'vnc_type_multiline' (which handles multi-line text). The verb 'type' is clear, but the resource/context is under-specified.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'vnc_type_multiline' for multi-line text or 'vnc_key_press' for individual keystrokes, nor does it specify prerequisites such as requiring an active VNC connection. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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