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 what information is included ('full message history and current status'), which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not stated), potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific task by ID') and adds necessary detail ('including full message history and current status'). There's zero waste, and every word earns its place, making it highly concise 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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and some behavioral context (what info is returned), but lacks details on output format, error cases, or operational constraints. For a read operation in a complex toolset, this is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('taskId' and 'useCache'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format of 'taskId' or implications of 'useCache'). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific task by ID', specifying it includes 'full message history and current status'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bytebot_list_tasks' (which lists multiple tasks) and 'bytebot_get_in_progress_task' (which focuses on in-progress tasks), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be slightly more explicit about sibling differentiation.

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 when needing detailed task info by ID, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'bytebot_get_in_progress_task' or 'bytebot_list_tasks'. It provides some context ('by ID') but lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives, leaving usage somewhat inferred rather than explicitly guided.

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