mcp-electron-driver

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the safety aspect ('Safe to call even if the element is already visible'), which is useful, but lacks details on potential side effects, error handling, or performance implications. It does not contradict annotations, but could be more comprehensive for a tool with mutation-like behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a helpful safety note in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and safety, but lacks details on parameter usage, return values, or error conditions. It meets minimum viability but could be more complete for effective agent use.

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 'timeoutMs' has a description), and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'selector' but does not explain its format or usage, and 'timeoutMs' is only documented in the schema. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, resulting in minimal added value over the schema.

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 specific action ('Scroll the first element matching a selector into view') and resource ('first element matching a selector'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'scroll' (general scrolling) or 'wait_for_selector' (waiting). It precisely defines the tool's function with a verb+resource combination.

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 clear context for usage ('if needed') and a safety note ('Safe to call even if the element is already visible'), which helps in decision-making. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like 'scroll' or 'wait_for_selector', nor does it specify exclusions, leaving some guidance implicit.

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