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 clearly explains the tool's behavior: it returns detailed element information when something is focused, and returns { focused: false } when nothing meaningful has focus (document.body). This covers the key behavioral trait of handling the no-focus case.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and what's returned, and the second sentence explains the edge case behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool does, what information it returns, and how it handles the no-focus case. The only minor gap is not explicitly mentioning the format of the bounding box or text snippet details.

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 baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's behavior and output.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('currently focused element'), listing the exact information returned (tag, id, classes, text snippet, bounding box). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_bbox' or 'get_text' by focusing specifically on the focused element rather than any element.

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 this tool: to get information about the currently focused element. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by not mentioning alternatives, but the specificity of 'currently focused' naturally sets it apart from tools like 'get_bbox' or 'elements_list' that work on other elements.

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