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. It discloses the core behavior (selecting dropdown options) and parameter requirements ('At least one must be provided'), but doesn't mention error handling, what happens if multiple options match, or whether the selection triggers page changes. It adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the purpose, the second explains parameter usage. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words on unnecessary details.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks details about return values, error conditions, or the relationship between parameters. It covers the 'what' but not the 'what happens after' or edge cases, making it minimally complete.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage (only timeoutMs has a description), the description compensates well by explaining the semantics of three key parameters (value, label, index) and their relationship ('At least one must be provided'). However, it doesn't explain the 'selector' parameter which is required, leaving a gap in parameter understanding.

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 ('Select an option') and resource ('in a <select> dropdown'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'click' or 'press' by specifying it's for dropdown selection. It precisely identifies the target UI element type.

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 about when to use this tool (for dropdown selection) but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. It implies usage for <select> elements but doesn't exclude other selection scenarios.

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