Browser MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Drag from one position to another' implies a mouse interaction that likely involves pressing, moving, and releasing, but doesn't specify whether this simulates a click-and-drag, what mouse button is used, whether it's a continuous drag or instant teleport, or what visual/UI effects occur. The reference to browser_docs suggests behavioral details are documented elsewhere, but the description itself lacks critical behavioral context.

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?

Extremely concise with just one sentence plus a parenthetical reference. The description is front-loaded with the core action. However, the reference to 'browser_docs' feels like a cop-out rather than integrated information, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 mouse interaction tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success/failure? screenshot?), what side effects occur (does it wait for animations?), or provide enough context about the drag behavior. The reference to external documentation acknowledges the gap but doesn't fill it.

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%, with all four parameters (fromX, fromY, toX, toY) clearly documented in the schema as coordinate values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but since schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the 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 'Drag from one position to another' states the action (drag) but is vague about the resource/context. It mentions 'see browser_docs' which suggests additional documentation is needed, but doesn't specify what exactly gets dragged (mouse cursor? elements?). It distinguishes from siblings like browser_mouse_click and browser_mouse_move by indicating a drag operation rather than click or move.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The reference to 'browser_docs' implies documentation exists elsewhere, but the description itself provides no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or when to choose this over similar mouse interaction tools like browser_mouse_click or browser_hover.

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