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 describes the scrolling behavior (absolute vs. delta scrolling) and the selector logic, but doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., page layout changes, event triggers), error conditions, or performance implications. It adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure 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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly address purpose, parameters, and sibling differentiation with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical guidance without redundancy.

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 (scrolling with multiple parameter options), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, parameter logic, and sibling differentiation. However, it lacks details on return values or error handling, which would be helpful for a mutation tool without structured output documentation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the selector logic and the x/y vs. dx/dy distinction, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verbs ('scroll an element or the window') and distinguishes it from a sibling tool ('use scroll_into_view instead if you just want to make an element visible'). It explicitly mentions the resource (element or window) and the action (scroll to absolute position or delta).

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it specifies to use scroll_into_view instead for making an element visible, and clarifies the conditions for scrolling an element vs. the window (based on selector presence). This directly addresses sibling differentiation and usage context.

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