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. It mentions the direction mapping for dy, which is useful behavioral context. However, it fails to disclose critical traits: whether scrolling is relative or absolute, if it requires focus on a window, potential side effects, or response format. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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: two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Scroll at screen coordinates') and adds essential direction clarification. Every word earns its place, 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 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is minimally complete. It covers the tool's basic function and dy semantics but misses details on other parameters, behavioral context, and usage scenarios. For a low-complexity tool, it's adequate but has clear gaps.

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. It explains dy's meaning (negative=up, positive=down), adding value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't cover x, y, or dx parameters, leaving their purposes unclear (e.g., x/y as coordinates, dx as horizontal scroll). With 4 parameters and low coverage, this partial explanation is minimal but adequate for baseline.

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 tool's purpose: 'Scroll at screen coordinates' specifies the action (scroll) and target (screen coordinates). It distinguishes from siblings like mouse_move or mouse_click by focusing on scrolling. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what is being scrolled (e.g., windows, content), leaving some ambiguity.

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 implies usage by explaining coordinate system and direction: 'dy negative=up, positive=down' suggests when to use specific dy values. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like mouse_drag or key_press for scrolling, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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