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 action happens 'via the real keyboard' which suggests system-level interaction, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's synchronous/asynchronous, potential side effects on other applications, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 functionality. Every word earns its place - 'Send a hotkey chord' establishes the action, examples clarify the format, and 'via the real keyboard' provides important context about the implementation level. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. While an output schema exists (which reduces need to describe return values), the tool performs a system-level action with potential side effects, yet the description lacks crucial information about permissions, platform compatibility, error behavior, and the scope of what 'real keyboard' means in practice.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (parameter 'keys_csv' has no description in schema), the description must compensate but provides minimal parameter guidance. It gives examples of format ('command,l' or 'ctrl,shift,p') which helps understand the CSV format, but doesn't explain what constitutes valid keys, modifier combinations, platform differences, or error handling for invalid input.

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 specific action ('Send a hotkey chord') and resource ('via the real keyboard'), with concrete examples ('command,l' or 'ctrl,shift,p') that make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'type_text' or 'mouse_click' by focusing on keyboard shortcuts rather than text input or mouse actions.

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 keyboard shortcuts but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'type_text' for regular text input or 'mouse_click' for mouse interactions. No guidance is provided about when not to use it or specific scenarios where it's preferred over other input methods.

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