browser_tips

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool provides guidance/tips (a read-only informational function), but doesn't specify behavioral traits like whether it returns structured data, if it's interactive, or if it has any side effects. The description is neutral but lacks depth about how the tool behaves.

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, reasonably concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It could be slightly more front-loaded with a clearer action verb, but it efficiently communicates the core idea without unnecessary words or structure.

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 has 0 parameters, annotations, but has an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool provides (tips/guidance) but doesn't detail the format or content of the output, relying on the output schema for that. For a guidance tool among many action-oriented siblings, more context about when and how to use it would be helpful.

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 baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter documentation.

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 it provides 'best practices and practical tips' for browser MCP tools, which gives a general purpose but is vague about what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify a clear verb+resource combination (like 'display tips' or 'retrieve guidance'), and doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools that perform concrete browser actions.

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 mentions 'LLM-oriented best practices' and 'robust, step-by-step use', implying it should be used for guidance when working with browser tools, but provides no explicit when-to-use rules, no exclusions, and no alternatives. It doesn't specify whether to use this before, during, or after browser operations.

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