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. It effectively discloses the tool's behavior as a health check that returns a response indicating operational status. However, it doesn't specify what the response format is (though an output schema exists) or mention potential failure modes like timeouts or error conditions.

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 any redundant words. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for a simple diagnostic tool, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, output schema provided), the description is complete. It clearly explains what the tool does, when to use it, and its behavioral intent. The output schema will handle return value details, so no additional explanation of results is needed in the description.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it implicitly confirms there are no required inputs by focusing solely on the check action. This aligns perfectly with the empty input schema, providing adequate semantic context.

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 ('Check if the extension is running and responding') with a precise verb ('Check') and resource ('the extension'). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which perform various window management, input simulation, and screenshot operations, by focusing solely on system health verification.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Check if the extension is running and responding.' This provides clear context for verifying system availability before attempting other operations. No sibling tools serve this diagnostic purpose, making the usage guidance complete and unambiguous.

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