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 describes the basic behavior (moving the cursor) but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it works across applications, or any rate limits. It adds minimal context beyond the obvious action, making it adequate but not comprehensive for a tool with no 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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (2 simple parameters) and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or coordinate system. With no annotations, it could benefit from more context, but it meets basic requirements.

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 100% description coverage, clearly defining x and y coordinates in pixels. The description does not add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as coordinate ranges or screen resolution considerations. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Move the mouse cursor') and target ('to specific screen coordinates'), distinguishing it from siblings like bytebot_click (which performs a click action) and bytebot_drag (which involves dragging). It provides a verb+resource combination that is precise and unambiguous.

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 includes explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to position the cursor before clicking or dragging'), which helps differentiate it from other cursor-related tools. However, it does not specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like bytebot_cursor_position (which might retrieve rather than set position), leaving some room for improvement.

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