agent-browser-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('return') for diagnostic purposes, which implies it's likely non-destructive and safe. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics (e.g., rate limits), leaving gaps 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information ('return extension path, bridge ports, and connection status') and includes the purpose ('for setup/diagnostics'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what data is returned and the diagnostic context. However, it could benefit from more detail on output format or error handling, though the presence of an output schema mitigates this gap.

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 the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately focuses on output semantics. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters are present, and the description adds value by hinting at what information is returned.

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 specific verbs ('return') and resources ('extension path, bridge ports, and connection status'), and specifies the context ('for setup/diagnostics'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'extension_path' or 'list_extensions' that might provide related information, preventing 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 implies usage context ('for setup/diagnostics'), suggesting when this tool might be appropriate, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'extension_path' or 'list_extensions', nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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