agent-browser-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the method ('mss') and a use case, but lacks details on permissions needed, file format, error handling, or whether it overwrites existing files. This is inadequate for a tool that captures screenshots, which may involve system access and file operations.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes necessary context without redundancy.

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 complexity (screenshot capture with system interaction), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimal. It covers purpose and method but lacks behavioral details and parameter guidance. The output schema may help, but the description itself is incomplete for safe and effective use.

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%, with one parameter 'save_path' undocumented. The description does not mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, with only one optional parameter, the baseline is slightly higher, but it adds no value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Take a desktop screenshot') and resource ('whole screen'), specifying the method ('using mss') and a use case ('physical-input verification'). It distinguishes from sibling 'capture_page_screenshot' by focusing on desktop rather than web page, though not explicitly named.

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 'physical-input verification,' suggesting a context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'capture_page_screenshot' or other input methods. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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