ByteBot MCP Server

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 mentions the supported button types and double-clicks, which is useful, but fails to address critical aspects like whether this action is destructive (e.g., could trigger unintended UI changes), requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. For a UI automation tool with potential side effects, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loads the core action ('Click at specific screen coordinates') and adds only essential details about button support. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (UI interaction with 4 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic functionality but lacks context about behavioral risks, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., coordinate sourcing from 'cursor_position'). For a tool that could have significant side effects, more completeness is warranted.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (x, y coordinates, button types, click count). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'left, right, and middle mouse buttons' and 'double-clicks', which are already implied by the schema's enum and count parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Click at specific screen coordinates') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'move_mouse', 'drag', or 'press_keys' by specifying mouse button interactions. It explicitly mentions the supported button types and double-click capability, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 like 'drag' for dragging actions or 'move_mouse' for positioning without clicking. It lacks any context about prerequisites (e.g., needing to position the mouse first) or typical use cases, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.

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