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 clearly describes what data is retrieved (window title, URL, viewport size from window.innerWidth/innerHeight, uptime, devicePixelRatio) and implies this is a read-only operation. However, it doesn't specify format of return values or potential limitations.

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?

Single sentence efficiently lists all retrieved data points with zero wasted words. The description is appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool that returns multiple metrics.

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 no-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains what data is retrieved. However, it doesn't specify the format/structure of return values or provide any error handling context, which would be helpful given the lack of 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on what the tool returns.

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 explicitly states the specific verb 'Get' and lists the exact resources retrieved: current window title, URL, viewport size, uptime, and devicePixelRatio. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on window/system information rather than interaction or element inspection.

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 retrieving window/system metrics, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'windows_list' or 'snapshot'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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