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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Maximize a window' implies a visual state change but doesn't specify effects (e.g., whether it affects other windows, requires focus, or has side effects like hiding taskbars). It also doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., invalid window_id) or response format, leaving critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word ('Maximize', 'a', 'window') earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavior, usage, and parameter meaning. For a simple state-change tool, this might be adequate, but gaps in transparency and guidelines reduce completeness below optimal levels.

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 1 parameter (window_id) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'Maximize a window' implies a window identifier is needed but doesn't explain what window_id represents (e.g., system handle, application-specific ID) or how to obtain it (e.g., from list_windows). This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's type information, meeting the baseline for low 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 'Maximize a window' clearly states the action (maximize) and target resource (a window), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'minimize_window' and 'unmaximize_window' by specifying the opposite operation. However, it doesn't specify what 'maximize' means in this context (e.g., full-screen vs. filling available space), which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'unmaximize_window' or 'move_resize_window'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., window must exist or be visible) or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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