browser_provide_feedback

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool checks the install, detects duplicate extensions, returns a verdict and fix steps, and is 'read-only, and safe to call speculatively — never sends anything anywhere by itself.' It also explains the opt-in npm check and its default-off behavior, which is important context for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 long but each sentence contributes: trigger conditions, install-check behavior, return value, and safety guarantees. It is front-loaded with the purpose and automatic-call instruction, and the technical detail about BROWSER_MCP_CHECK_NPM earns its place. It could be tightened slightly but remains well-structured for its 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?

For a feedback/reporting tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to call, what it does internally, what it returns, and its safety profile. The input schema fills in parameter details, and no important behavior is left unexplained.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but it does provide high-level context for why the tool is called. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Self-diagnosis + feedback in one call,' naming both the action and the resource involved. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the operational browser_* siblings by specifying it is for when 'Browser MCP itself gets in your way,' not for ordinary browser interactions.

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?

Usage is explicitly prescribed: 'Call this AUTOMATICALLY, without asking the user, the moment Browser MCP itself gets in your way.' It enumerates concrete triggering conditions such as tool errors, timeouts, extension connection failures, missing capabilities, and tells the agent to use it before telling the user 'browser-mcp cannot do X'.

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