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 for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention side effects (e.g., potential UI changes), performance characteristics, error conditions, or what the double-click actually triggers in the system. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

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 waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (basic UI interaction) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it should provide more context about behavior and parameters to be fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but only implies parameters through 'screen coordinates' (hinting at x and y). It doesn't explain the 'button' parameter or provide any format details. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema structure shows, meeting baseline expectations 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 clearly states the action ('Double-click') and target ('at screen coordinates'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'mouse_click' by specifying the double-click action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other mouse operations beyond the name difference.

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 'mouse_click' or other mouse operations. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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