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 moving 'the real mouse cursor' which implies physical movement, but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if coordinates are out of bounds, or if there are any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral details.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential 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 that there's an output schema (which means return values are documented elsewhere), the description covers the basic action. However, for a tool that physically moves a mouse cursor with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description should provide more context about behavior and usage. 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 description mentions 'screen coordinates' which relates to the x and y parameters, but doesn't explain what these coordinates represent or the units. With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (x, y, duration), the description provides only basic context without compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions. The baseline is appropriate given the schema coverage.

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 ('Move') and target ('the real mouse cursor to screen coordinates'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mouse_click' or 'mouse_drag' which are related mouse operations, so it doesn't reach the highest 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_click' or 'mouse_drag', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. It simply states what the tool does without any usage context.

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