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. It discloses the basic behavior (press at coordinates for duration) and return type (success/error message), but lacks details on permissions needed, side effects (e.g., if it triggers UI actions), error conditions, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely interacts with device input.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the formatting with quotes and line breaks is slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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, 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters well and notes the return type, but lacks behavioral context like error handling or interaction effects, which is important for a device input tool with siblings like 'long_click'.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds crucial semantics beyond the schema: it explains that x and y coordinates can be absolute or relative (0-1), and specifies the default value and unit (milliseconds) for duration. This covers all 3 parameters effectively, though it could note that x and y are required.

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 ('Long press') and resource ('at specified coordinates'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'click' (brief tap) and 'long_click' (similar but potentially different implementation). It precisely defines the action as a press with duration, making it 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 implies usage for long press actions on a screen, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'click' (for taps) or 'long_click' (a sibling tool with similar name). It provides context (coordinates and duration) but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection or exclusions.

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