Browser MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Get a summary'), which implies it's non-destructive, but it doesn't specify behavioral traits such as what the summary includes (e.g., counts, durations, formats), whether it requires a page to be loaded, or potential errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it 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 highly concise and front-loaded: 'Get a summary of all audio and video elements on the page (see browser_docs).' It uses a single, clear sentence that states the core purpose, with a brief reference for additional details. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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's complexity (simple read operation with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or dependencies (e.g., needing a page loaded). For a tool with no structured output information, more context would be helpful, but it meets the basic threshold for a simple function.

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 (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't introduce any confusion. In such cases, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as there's nothing to compensate for, and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.

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: 'Get a summary of all audio and video elements on the page.' It specifies the verb ('Get a summary'), resource ('audio and video elements'), and scope ('on the page'), which is clear and specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_get_audio_analysis' or 'browser_get_dom', which might also relate to media or page content, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 usage guidance. It references 'browser_docs' for more information, implying that additional context might be found there, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'browser_get_audio_analysis' for detailed audio data or 'browser_get_dom' for broader page elements). Without clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, the guidance is insufficient.

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