ByteBot MCP Server

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 mentions the tool is 'useful for' certain operations but doesn't describe key behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, how it interacts with the system (e.g., mouse button states, timing), or potential side effects (e.g., if it might trigger unintended actions). The description is too vague for a mutation tool with no 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 front-loaded and concise, consisting of two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides helpful usage examples, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity of a mouse drag operation (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions, what happens during the drag (e.g., mouse button press/release), or return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters clearly documented in the schema (from_x, from_y, to_x, to_y as coordinates). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as coordinate units or valid ranges. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('drag') and resource ('mouse'), explaining it moves from one position to another. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bytebot_move_mouse' by specifying a drag action rather than a simple move, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other tools like 'bytebot_click' or 'bytebot_scroll'.

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 for when to use this tool ('useful for moving windows, selecting text, or drag-and-drop operations'), giving practical examples. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as when a simple click or move might suffice instead.

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