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 and does so effectively. It reveals key traits: the tool returns basic info (tag, text snippet, id, etc.), has a default cap of 50 elements, and includes default attributes like 'aria-label' and 'role'. This covers output format, limits, and defaults, though it lacks details on error handling or performance implications.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first ('Enumerate elements matching a selector'), followed by return details and usage examples. Every sentence earns its place by adding value, such as the cap note and practical examples, without redundancy or fluff.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and usage context well, but lacks details on output structure (e.g., format of returned info) and error cases, which would enhance completeness for a tool with no output schema.

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 schema description coverage is 67% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions), and the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema. It explains that 'selector' is for matching elements and implies 'limit' controls the cap mentioned, while the schema details defaults. However, it does not fully compensate for the lack of schema description on 'selector', leaving its exact syntax or examples unspecified.

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 ('enumerate elements matching a selector') and resources ('returning basic info about each'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_attribute' or 'get_text' by emphasizing bulk retrieval of multiple elements. It provides concrete examples ('what buttons are on this screen', 'give me all list items') that clarify its use case beyond just listing elements.

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 offers clear context for when to use this tool ('Great for "what buttons are on this screen" or "give me all list items"'), which implicitly suggests it's for exploratory or bulk queries rather than targeted single-element operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'get_attribute' for detailed single-element info.

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