GNOME Desktop MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as getting detailed properties, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what 'detailed properties' includes. The description adds basic context but lacks depth for a tool with no 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated clearly in the first sentence and additional parameter details in a concise 'Args' section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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 (1 parameter), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context, such as what 'detailed properties' entails, but the output schema likely handles return values, so this isn't critical.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains that window_id is 'The window's stable ID (from list_windows),' clarifying its source and stability. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail format or constraints beyond the basic explanation.

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 as 'Get detailed properties of a specific window,' which is a specific verb (get) and resource (window properties). It distinguishes from siblings like list_windows (which lists windows) and screenshot_window (which captures images), but doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools like focus_window or maximize_window.

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 mentioning the window_id comes 'from list_windows,' suggesting this tool should be used after listing windows. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like focus_window or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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