agent-browser-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 states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details such as permissions required (e.g., cookie access), rate limits, error handling, or what 'via the Chrome extension bridge' entails operationally. For a tool interacting with browser data, this gap is significant as it doesn't disclose security or performance implications.

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 ('Get cookies') and adds necessary context ('for the current page or specified tab via the Chrome extension bridge'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and context but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and integration with the Chrome extension. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but it should do more to compensate for the sparse structured data.

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 mentions 'current page or specified tab', hinting at the 'tab_id' parameter, and 'via the Chrome extension bridge' might relate to 'session_id', but it doesn't explain what these parameters mean (e.g., 'session_id' for extension sessions, 'tab_id' for browser tabs) or their formats. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's titles, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 ('Get cookies') and the resource ('current page or specified tab'), specifying it works 'via the Chrome extension bridge'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'capture_page_screenshot' or 'type_text' by focusing on cookie retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'cdp_command' that might also interact with Chrome DevTools Protocol for similar purposes.

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 when cookies are needed from a browser context, with parameters for session or tab targeting. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'cdp_command' for more complex Chrome interactions) or prerequisites like needing the Chrome extension active. The context is clear but lacks detailed exclusions or comparisons.

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