AutoBot MCP

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 states the tool returns a formatted string, which is helpful, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence and the return type in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for returns).

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 (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does and the return format, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. With an output schema, it doesn't need to elaborate on return values, but overall completeness is adequate with clear gaps.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4 as it adequately addresses the lack of inputs without unnecessary detail.

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 ('Get') and resource ('screen information'), including what information is retrieved (dimensions, rotation). It distinguishes from siblings like get_screen_rotation (which likely only returns rotation) and get_screenshot (which captures an image). However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from get_device_info, which might overlap in scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios for usage, prerequisites, or comparisons to siblings like get_screen_rotation or get_device_info, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.

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