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 states the action ('unminimize/restore') but doesn't mention side effects (e.g., whether it changes window focus, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded, using just one sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 (one parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or parameter meaning. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description should still cover more for a mutation tool.

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 information beyond what the schema provides (a single 'window_id' parameter). With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'window_id' represents or how to obtain it. However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any semantic context reduces it to 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 clearly states the action ('unminimize/restore') and resource ('a window'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'maximize_window' or 'unmaximize_window', but the verb 'unminimize' is specific enough to imply its unique function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the window must be minimized) or compare it to similar tools like 'unmaximize_window' or 'focus_window', leaving the agent to infer usage context 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.