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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what 'unmaximize' entails (e.g., restoring to previous size/position), whether it requires specific window states or permissions, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with a single sentence 'Unmaximize a window.' It's front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 low complexity (single parameter, simple action) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral context, it leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice. It meets basic requirements but could be more informative.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter (window_id), the schema only indicates it's a required integer. The description doesn't explain what window_id represents (e.g., how to obtain it from list_windows) or its format. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but since no value is added, it scores 3.

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 'Unmaximize a window' clearly states the action (unmaximize) and resource (a window) with a specific verb. It distinguishes from siblings like maximize_window and minimize_window by indicating the opposite action of maximizing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from unminimize_window, which is a similar but distinct operation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., window must be maximized), when-not-to-use scenarios, or explicit alternatives like minimize_window or move_resize_window for window state management. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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