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 real mouse' which implies physical movement, but fails to describe critical behaviors like whether this interrupts user control, requires specific permissions, has visual effects, or what the output contains. For a tool that manipulates hardware input, 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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the core functionality.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and hardware interaction implications, the description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description doesn't address critical context like coordinate systems, timing behavior, or interaction effects that would help an agent use this tool correctly.

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 for all 6 parameters, the description provides no information about parameter meanings beyond what's implied by the action. It doesn't explain what x1/y1/x2/y2 represent (screen coordinates), what units duration uses (seconds implied by default 0.3), or what button options exist. 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 ('drag') and resource ('the real mouse') with specific directionality ('from one point to another'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mouse_click or mouse_move. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential drag-like operations in other tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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_move or mouse_click, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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