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 return format but omits critical details like permissions needed (e.g., screen capture access), potential side effects (e.g., if it requires focus or alters state), error handling, or performance implications (e.g., rate limits). This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with screen data.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for args and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse. The bullet-point style enhances readability 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 moderate complexity (screen interaction with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema that covers return values, the description is partially complete. It explains the basic operation and return format but lacks context on behavioral aspects like permissions or errors, making it adequate but with clear gaps for safe and effective use.

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 adds meaning by specifying that x and y are coordinates in pixels, which clarifies their purpose beyond the schema's basic integer types. However, it doesn't detail coordinate origin (e.g., top-left vs. bottom-left) or valid ranges, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('Get the pixel color') and resource ('at screen coordinates'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like screenshot or mouse operations. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 screenshot tools or other screen-related functions. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as screen accessibility or coordinate system details, and offers no explicit when/when-not scenarios.

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