mcp-electron-driver

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive behavior ('Delete all screenshots'), which is critical for a mutation tool. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether deletions are reversible, error handling, or confirmation prompts. The description adds value but doesn't fully cover behavioral traits for a destructive operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (destructive operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral implications (e.g., irreversible deletion, scope limitations). For a destructive tool, more context would improve completeness, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools, as no additional semantics are needed beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Delete all screenshots') and target resource ('from the current session directory'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'screenshot' (which creates screenshots) and 'snapshot' (which likely captures snapshots). The purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.

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 the tool ('Useful between test phases to keep storage tidy'), indicating it's for maintenance during testing workflows. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., whether 'clear_input' or other cleanup tools exist), which prevents a perfect score.

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