mcp-electron-driver

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 explains the tool captures data (non-destructive read operation) and mentions the default behavior for 'interestingOnly' (matches Playwright default), but does not cover other aspects like performance implications, error handling, or output structure details.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose and use cases, and the second provides a key parameter tip. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.

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 moderate complexity (accessibility data capture), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or integration with other tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer behavior.

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 adds minimal value by mentioning 'interestingOnly: false' as an option to include every node, but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema descriptions state.

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 specific action ('capture the accessibility tree') and resource ('current page'), with a precise output format ('as JSON'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'screenshot' or 'snapshot' by focusing on accessibility data rather than visual or DOM snapshots.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('useful for testing screen-reader behaviour, finding elements by role, or auditing for missing ARIA labels'), which helps differentiate it from other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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