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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it lists windows with specific attributes, mentions the return format, and notes the edge case for single-window apps. It does not cover potential errors, performance, or side effects, but for a read-only tool with zero parameters, this is sufficient.

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 clarification in the second. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete enough for a read-only listing operation. It explains what the tool does and what information is returned, covering the basics. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return structure or error handling, but this is minor.

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 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. This meets the baseline for zero parameters, but a perfect score is reserved for cases where the description compensates for schema gaps, which isn't applicable here.

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 ('List every BrowserWindow') and resource ('the app has open'), including what information is returned ('title, URL, id, and whether it is focused/minimized/maximized'). It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is about listing windows, unlike other tools that handle interactions, navigation, or app control.

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 on when to use it—to list open browser windows with their details—and includes a note about single-window apps returning one entry, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'switch_window' or 'start_app/stop_app' for window management.

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