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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Minimize a window') but doesn't explain what happens (e.g., window goes to taskbar/dock, state changes, reversibility with 'unminimize_window'), permissions needed, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 ('Minimize a window.') with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as it lacks necessary details for effective tool use.

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 complexity (a mutation with 1 parameter, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter semantics, behavioral context, or usage guidelines, and while the output schema might handle return values, the description doesn't reference it or provide enough context for the agent to use the tool effectively.

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 with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. The description doesn't mention 'window_id' or explain what it represents (e.g., identifier from 'list_windows'), leaving the parameter's meaning and usage undocumented. This fails to compensate 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 'Minimize a window' states the verb (minimize) and resource (window), which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'close_window', 'maximize_window', or 'unminimize_window', leaving ambiguity about when to choose one over another. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about scope or 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'close_window', 'maximize_window', or 'unminimize_window'. The description implies it minimizes a window but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., window must be open), exclusions, or contextual cues. This leaves the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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