Browser MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions what gets analyzed (sound vs silence, frequencies) but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether this requires specific permissions, how results are returned, if it's blocking/non-blocking, error conditions, or performance implications. The reference to 'browser_docs' suggests more information exists elsewhere but isn't self-contained.

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 appropriately brief (one sentence plus reference) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the parenthetical '(see browser_docs)' feels tacked on rather than integrated, and the single sentence could be more structured with clearer separation of analysis goals.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the analysis returns (format, structure, units), doesn't mention error cases or limitations, and relies on external documentation. Given the complexity of audio analysis and lack of structured output documentation, more self-contained information would be valuable.

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 fully documents both parameters (durationMs and selector). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain typical duration values, selector syntax examples, or how these parameters affect the analysis. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Analyze audio output for a duration to detect sound vs silence and frequencies'. It specifies the resource (audio output) and the action (analyze to detect sound/silence/frequencies). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_get_media_summary' or 'browser_control_media', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides minimal guidance with 'see browser_docs' reference, but offers no explicit when-to-use instructions, no when-not-to-use warnings, and no alternatives among the many browser sibling tools. It lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios for audio analysis versus other media tools.

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