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 the tool's function (waiting) and typical use cases, but lacks details on behavioral traits like whether it blocks other operations, handles interruptions, or has any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete for its purpose. It covers what the tool does and when to use it, though it could benefit from more behavioral details to fully compensate for the lack of annotations, especially regarding execution 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'duration' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as typical duration ranges or unit implications, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('wait') and resource ('specified duration'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which perform UI automation tasks like clicking, typing, or file operations. It precisely defines what the tool does without being tautological.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance with 'Use this to add delays between actions or wait for UI updates,' offering clear context for when to apply this tool versus proceeding directly with other automation actions. It effectively distinguishes this timing tool from the action-oriented siblings.

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