agent-browser-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the optional file save but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's read-only or destructive, error handling, or output format beyond the schema. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with browser pages.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by separating the capture action from the optional save feature, and it lacks critical details that would justify additional length.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is incomplete. It hints at CDP usage and file saving but omits parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain significant.

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 only mentions the 'save_path' parameter explicitly and implies CDP context via 'session_id' and 'tab_id', but doesn't explain parameter meanings, defaults, or interactions. This provides minimal value beyond the schema's property names, meeting the baseline for inadequate 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 action ('capture a screenshot') and the target ('current page/tab via CDP'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'capture_desktop_screenshot'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other CDP-based tools like 'cdp_command' or 'scan_page', which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'capture_desktop_screenshot' for desktop screenshots or 'cdp_command' for other CDP operations. It mentions the optional file save feature but doesn't clarify prerequisites or context for effective use.

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