GNOME Desktop MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the button mapping (1=left, 2=middle, 3=right) but fails to explain critical behaviors like whether this triggers a full click event (down and up), if it requires focus on a specific window, or what the output schema contains. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with two sentences that directly convey essential information: the action and button semantics. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is limited due to missing operational details.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains that 'x' and 'y' are screen coordinates and defines the 'button' parameter values (1=left, 2=middle, 3=right), including a default not explicitly stated in the schema. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it could specify coordinate ranges or units.

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 specific action ('Click') and resource ('at screen coordinates'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mouse_move, mouse_drag, or mouse_double_click. It explicitly defines the verb and target, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 such as mouse_double_click or mouse_drag. It lacks context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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