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 clearly describes the core action (taking a screenshot) and mentions output format options, but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like file storage location, permissions needed, error conditions, or whether the operation is blocking/non-blocking. The description adds basic context but leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point style parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and parameters well. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool that interacts with the system GUI and creates files, more behavioral context about permissions, file management, and error handling would be beneficial.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantic explanations for all 4 parameters: window_id's source (list_windows), include_frame's effect (window decorations), include_cursor's effect (mouse cursor), and format's options/meaning (path vs base64). Each parameter's purpose is explained beyond just naming them.

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 ('Take a screenshot') and resource ('of a specific window'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'screenshot' (general screenshot) and 'screenshot_area' (area screenshot). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 by specifying 'of a specific window' and referencing 'list_windows' as the source for window_id, which helps differentiate it from other screenshot tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives like 'screenshot_area' for partial screenshots.

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