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 states the action ('Pause') but lacks details on execution (e.g., blocking vs. non-blocking, error handling, or performance implications like CPU usage during the wait). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond the basic pause function.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly convey the tool's function and usage advice. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and offers usage guidance, but misses behavioral details (e.g., what happens during the pause) and parameter specifics, leaving the agent with some uncertainty in more complex scenarios.

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 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'ms' of type 'number'. The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'ms' represents milliseconds for the pause duration, but doesn't specify units, valid ranges, or formatting (e.g., integer vs. float). This provides some context but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of details.

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 a specific verb ('Pause') and resource ('for N milliseconds'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'wait_for' or 'wait_for_selector' beyond suggesting preference, leaving some ambiguity about when this exact tool is uniquely appropriate.

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 guidance by explicitly naming alternatives ('wait_for_selector or wait_for') and advising to 'prefer' them when possible. This helps the agent understand when to consider other tools, though it doesn't specify exact scenarios where this tool is the only or best choice, such as for fixed delays or low-level timing needs.

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