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 effectively describes key behaviors: it auto-accepts or dismisses dialogs, handles different dialog types (alert/confirm/prompt/beforeunload), and includes auto-uninstall logic. However, it lacks details on error handling or permissions needed.

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 main purpose and efficiently details parameters and behavior in two sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to understand 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (handling multiple dialog types) and no annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the tool's function, parameters, and key behaviors, but could improve by mentioning potential side effects or integration with sibling tools.

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. The description adds some context by explaining the purpose of 'action' and 'text' in relation to dialogs, but it does not provide significant additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, such as examples or edge cases.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Install an auto-responder') and resources ('JavaScript dialogs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on UI interaction, accessibility, or evaluation. It precisely defines what the tool does without restating the name.

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 on when to use this tool ('for JavaScript dialogs') and mentions auto-uninstall behavior, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools like 'wait_for' or 'press' that might handle different dialog scenarios.

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