Browserbase MCP Server

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 effectively communicates the tool's purpose (capturing visual state) and context (browser control with Stagehand), though it doesn't mention potential side effects like performance impact or file storage behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: the core function, the primary use case, and the usage restriction. It's front-loaded with the essential information and wastes no words.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about purpose and usage guidelines. It could potentially mention what the screenshot returns (e.g., image data or file path), but given the tool's simplicity and clear behavioral context, it's mostly complete.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add specific parameter information, but it provides valuable context about when and why to use the tool, which indirectly informs parameter usage. This elevates it above the baseline.

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 specific action ('takes a screenshot') and resource ('of the current page'), distinguishing it from siblings like navigation or extraction tools. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to learn where you are on the page when controlling the browser with Stagehand') and when not to use it ('Only use this tool when the other tools are not sufficient to get the information you need'). This provides clear guidance about its specific context and alternatives.

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