agentbay-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world tool, which the description aligns with by describing a signup flow that likely creates new data. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool opens a browser (implying human interaction) and involves polling for an API key (suggesting asynchronous behavior), which are not covered by annotations.

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, consisting of two short sentences that directly explain the tool's action and process. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 complexity (involving browser interaction and polling), annotations cover safety aspects, and there are no parameters or output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the key behavioral steps but could benefit from more details on error handling or what happens after polling (e.g., how the API key is returned).

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it does imply the tool's operation involves user interaction and polling, providing context for the lack of parameters. This justifies a score above the baseline of 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Start', 'Opens', 'poll') and resource ('signup flow'), explaining it initiates a signup process that involves browser interaction and API key retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'agentbay_whoami', which likely serves a different purpose (e.g., checking current user status).

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'Opens browser for human signup', suggesting it's for initial user registration rather than other authentication tasks. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for existing users or automated signup) or any prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.

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

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation with limited scope. The description adds value by specifying the behavioral focus ('authentication status'), which isn't covered by annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations (e.g., it doesn't imply mutation), and it provides useful context about what the tool checks, though it could include more details like error handling or response format.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Check your current authentication status'), making it easy to understand quickly. Every part of the description earns its place by directly conveying the tool's function without redundancy or 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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on what 'authentication status' includes (e.g., user identity, permissions, expiry) or potential outputs. With no output schema, the description could benefit from more context about return values, though it's not strictly required. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter-specific information, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, and it aligns well with the schema's lack of inputs.

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 'Check your current authentication status' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('authentication status'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'agentbay_signup' (which likely creates authentication rather than checking it), though it doesn't explicitly mention this differentiation. The purpose is not vague or tautological, but it could be slightly more specific about what 'authentication status' entails.

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 implies usage context—checking authentication status—but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., after signup or when encountering errors) or exclusions. The sibling tool 'agentbay_signup' suggests an alternative for initial setup, but this isn't mentioned in the description, leaving usage as implied rather than clearly defined.

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