mcp-electron-driver

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure ({ exists, styles }) and that it reads from 'the first element matching a selector', which clarifies scope. However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance implications, or what happens if the selector matches multiple elements beyond the first.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states purpose and return format, the second provides concrete examples. It's front-loaded with key information and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains purpose, parameters, and return structure. However, it lacks details on error cases (e.g., invalid selector) and doesn't fully document the 'exists' field in the return object.

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 50% (only 'properties' has a description). The description adds value by explaining 'selector' targets the first matching element and providing example properties ('background-color', 'font-family', 'display'), which clarifies usage beyond the schema's minimal parameter documentation.

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 ('Read'), resource ('computed CSS property values'), and target ('from the first element matching a selector'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_attribute (reads HTML attributes) or get_text (reads text content) by specifying CSS property retrieval.

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 reading CSS values from DOM elements, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like get_attribute (for HTML attributes) or when not to use it (e.g., for non-CSS data). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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