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 but does not describe what happens after the move (e.g., whether it triggers events, requires permissions, or has side effects like cursor visibility changes). For a tool that interacts with the system UI, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (2 simple parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks behavioral details. It covers the basic action but misses context like error conditions or system dependencies, which are important for UI automation tools.

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 context by specifying that coordinates are 'absolute screen coordinates,' which clarifies the parameter semantics beyond the schema's basic integer types. With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, this compensates well, though it could further explain coordinate systems (e.g., origin at top-left).

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 ('Move the mouse') and target ('to absolute screen coordinates'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mouse_click, mouse_drag, or mouse_scroll which involve different mouse interactions. It precisely communicates the tool's function without redundancy.

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. It does not mention scenarios where mouse_move is appropriate compared to mouse_drag (for dragging) or mouse_click (for clicking after moving), nor does it specify prerequisites like requiring the system to be enabled or in a certain state.

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