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 'real desktop' which provides some context about the execution environment, but fails to describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a blocking operation, what happens if coordinates are invalid, or what the output contains. For a tool that interacts with the desktop UI, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise at just 7 words, front-loading the core functionality with zero wasted words. Every element ('Click', 'real desktop', 'screen coordinates') contributes essential information without redundancy.

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 complexity (desktop interaction with 5 parameters), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. However, the existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values. The description provides the absolute minimum viable information but leaves critical gaps in parameter understanding and behavioral context.

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 and 5 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'x' and 'y' coordinates represent, what button options exist, what 'clicks' and 'interval' control, or their default values. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Click') and target ('on the real desktop at screen coordinates'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'mouse_drag' or 'mouse_move', which would require explicit differentiation for 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 'mouse_drag' or 'mouse_move'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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