GNOME Desktop MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states it's a listing operation but doesn't disclose whether it requires permissions, how data is formatted, if there are rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description is functional but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List all monitors') and adds only essential detail ('with their geometry and scale'). Every word serves a clear purpose.

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 simplicity (no parameters, has output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what data is returned but doesn't provide context about the operating environment, data format, or error handling. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool does rather than inputs, earning a high baseline score for not introducing unnecessary complexity.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all monitors'), specifying what data is returned ('with their geometry and scale'). It distinguishes this as a read-only listing tool among siblings that include window manipulation and screenshot tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for retrieving monitor information, it doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or compare it to other tools like 'get_window' or 'list_windows' that might provide related data.

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