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. It mentions that the tool can 'send guidance' and perform actions (resume, cancel, retry), but lacks critical behavioral details: what permissions are required, whether the intervention is reversible, how the task state changes, or what happens after timeout. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and actions, the second provides usage context. It's front-loaded with key information and has no wasted words, though it could be slightly more polished.

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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what 'resume' entails, error conditions), permission requirements, and post-intervention state. The schema covers parameter mechanics, but the description doesn't compensate for the missing context around tool behavior.

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 documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the semantics of 'action' choices or 'continueMonitoring' implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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: 'Provide intervention for a task in NEEDS_HELP state' with specific actions (send guidance, resume, cancel, retry). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on stuck tasks needing human input, unlike general task management tools like bytebot_update_task or monitoring tools like bytebot_monitor_task. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives among siblings.

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 it: 'when a task is stuck and needs human input to proceed' and specifies the prerequisite state ('NEEDS_HELP state'). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to infer usage.

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