browser_about

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the tool returns info and pre-filled URLs, implies a read-only, non-mutating nature, and explains the community-contribution context. It does not explicitly rule out side effects, but nothing suggests any, and the description is honest about its purpose and output.

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 well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then provides actionable usage criteria and parameter mapping. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. It is detailed but appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain what it returns and how to use it. It does: 'Returns Browser MCP info and pre-filled URLs' and 'offer the returned submit_url to the user'. Combined with the thorough usage triggers and parameter guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and handle the result.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful context: it explains how title and body are URL-encoded into the submit link, elaborates the intent enum values with examples ('wish' = feature request, 'bug' = something broken), and clarifies the optionality and default for intent. This goes beyond the schema's raw definitions.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('Browser MCP info and pre-filled URLs'), and clarifies it is for feedback submission. It clearly differentiates from all sibling browser manipulation tools by its unique informational/feedback role, making it unmistakable.

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 gives explicit, enumerated triggers ('Call this PROACTIVELY whenever...') with concrete user-language examples and maps them to the intent parameter. It also instructs what to do with the output ('offer the returned submit_url'), providing complete when-to-use guidance without needing to reference alternatives.

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