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 discloses key behavioral traits: it types into the 'currently focused element' (implying no element selection) and uses 'keyboard events' (suggesting simulated typing). However, it lacks details on error handling, performance implications, or what happens if no element is focused, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: it states the tool's function, differentiation from sibling, and compatibility reason in two efficient sentences with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage, and key behavior. However, it lacks details on return values or error cases, which would be helpful since no output schema exists, leaving minor gaps.

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 'delayMs' has a description). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying 'text' is the string to type. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints, so it provides minimal value over the schema, aligning with the baseline for moderate coverage.

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: 'Types a literal string into the currently focused element as keyboard events.' It specifies the verb ('types'), resource ('currently focused element'), and mechanism ('keyboard events'), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling 'keyboard_type' by noting it's 'an alias... with no focus selector.'

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 explicit usage guidance: it states this tool is 'kept for backwards compatibility' and is 'an alias for keyboard_type with no focus selector,' indicating when to use it (for compatibility) and how it differs from the alternative (lacks focus selector). This clearly defines its context relative to siblings.

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