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 adds valuable context beyond basic functionality by stating 'Unmaximizes first if needed,' which informs about side effects and preconditions. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like error conditions, permissions needed, or rate limits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core functionality stated first ('Move and resize a window. Unmaximizes first if needed.') followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or verbose content.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 5 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is fairly complete. It covers the main action, side effects, and parameters, but could benefit from more behavioral details like error handling or coordinate system explanations. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'New X position'), adding meaning beyond the schema's titles. This clarifies the purpose of each parameter, though it doesn't provide detailed constraints or units (e.g., pixel coordinates).

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 with specific verbs ('move and resize a window') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like maximize_window, minimize_window, and unmaximize_window. It also mentions the unmaximization behavior, which adds specificity beyond just the name.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to move and resize windows) and implicitly distinguishes it from alternatives like maximize_window or minimize_window. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or detailed prerequisites, such as whether the window must be visible or focused.

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