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 mentions the scope ('visible to the CDP bridge extension itself'), which adds some context about visibility constraints, but fails to describe key behaviors such as whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format includes (e.g., extension names, IDs, versions), or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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 has an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage for the single parameter, the description is incomplete—it lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter explanations. For a simple listing tool, it's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 input schema has one parameter ('session_id') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. Since there is only one parameter and schema coverage is low, the description does not compensate by explaining its purpose (e.g., what 'session_id' refers to or when it should be used). However, with zero parameters explained in the description, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter context reduces it to 3.

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 ('List') and resource ('Chrome extensions'), and specifies the scope ('visible to the CDP bridge extension itself'), which helps distinguish it from generic extension listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_tabs' or 'get_setup_status', which might also involve listing operations in the browser context.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing the CDP bridge extension to be active, or compare it to sibling tools like 'list_tabs' for tab management. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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