mcp-electron-driver

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action ('press') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it simulates a real key press, if it works in specific contexts (e.g., focused window), error handling, or performance implications. The description is minimal and lacks necessary behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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: it states the purpose in the first sentence and provides helpful examples in the second. Every sentence earns its place by adding clarity without waste, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 complexity (a mutation action with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what happens after pressing (e.g., response, errors), prerequisites (e.g., window focus), or detailed behavioral traits. For a tool that modifies state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining that the 'key' parameter accepts examples like 'Escape' or 'Control+S', which clarifies the expected string format. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation, such as listing all valid keys or constraints.

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: 'Press a keyboard key or chord in the window.' It specifies the verb ('press') and resource ('keyboard key or chord'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'keyboard_type' or 'press_sequence' beyond providing examples. The purpose is specific but lacks sibling distinction.

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 through examples (e.g., 'Escape', 'Control+S'), suggesting when to use this tool for key presses, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'keyboard_type' (for typing text) or 'press_sequence' (for multiple keys). Guidelines are implied rather than explicit.

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