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 usefully describes the 'force' parameter's purpose (skipping actionability checks for overlays), which adds context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't cover other important behaviors like error handling, what happens on failure, or interaction with the UI state, leaving 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 extremely concise with just two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and efficiently covering key parameter usage. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent 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?

For a UI interaction tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic action and a key parameter nuance, but doesn't address potential side effects, error conditions, or what constitutes successful execution. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by briefly mentioning 'selector' and 'ref' alternatives and the 'force' parameter's use case, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. 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 ('Click an element') and specifies the target resource ('element'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'press' or 'hover' that also interact with elements, which prevents a perfect score.

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 some implied usage guidance by mentioning when to use 'force: true' ('when an overlay is in the way'), but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'press' for keyboard interactions or 'hover' for mouse hovering. No clear exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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