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 clearly indicates this is a read-only reporting function (not a mutation), but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like refresh rate, coordinate system, units of measurement, or whether it requires specific permissions. The description adds basic context but lacks operational 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 immediately communicates the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality and contains zero redundant information or fluff.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description provides adequate context for understanding what information will be retrieved. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a reporting tool with no annotations, some additional behavioral context (like coordinate format or refresh behavior) would enhance completeness.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters, maintaining focus on what the tool actually does. This meets the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Report') and resources ('current desktop mouse position and primary screen size'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mouse_click or mouse_move by focusing on information retrieval rather than action execution.

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 context (when you need mouse position and screen size information) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, limitations, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over other methods.

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