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. It discloses that the tool returns recent messages from a buffer, includes specific sources (renderer and main-process), and mentions that 'clear: true' drains the buffer—important behavioral traits. However, it doesn't cover rate limits, permissions, or response format 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise note on the 'clear' parameter. Both sentences are essential—no wasted words—making it 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key behavior (buffer draining). However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of log entries) and doesn't address potential complexities like pagination or error handling, leaving some gaps for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 mentioning the 'clear' parameter's effect ('drain the buffer after reading'), but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema, such as typical use cases for filters.

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 verb 'return' and the resource 'recent console messages', specifying they are captured since app start and include both renderer console and main-process stdout/stderr. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'screenshot' or 'wait' by focusing on log retrieval rather than UI interaction or timing.

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 implies usage for accessing console logs, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'eval_main' or 'eval_renderer' for direct execution, or 'info' for general information. It mentions the 'clear' parameter functionality but doesn't specify scenarios where clearing is appropriate versus not.

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