GNOME Desktop MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Focus and raise') but lacks details on behavioral traits: e.g., what 'raise' means (bring to front), whether it requires specific permissions, if it works on minimized windows, or error conditions. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for missing annotations.

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: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides essential parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter source but lacks details on behavioral aspects like what happens on failure or system-specific constraints, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 0%, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains that 'window_id' is a 'stable ID (from list_windows)', clarifying the parameter's source and purpose beyond the schema's basic type (integer). With only one parameter, this compensates well for the low schema coverage.

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 action ('Focus and raise a window') and identifies the resource (a window). It distinguishes from siblings like 'close_window' or 'minimize_window' by specifying the focus/raise action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlap with 'activate_workspace' or 'get_window' in terms of window management context.

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 implies usage by referencing 'window_id: The window's stable ID (from list_windows)', suggesting this tool should be used after obtaining window IDs from 'list_windows'. No explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives is provided, though the context hints at a workflow.

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