Browser MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool exports a log, implying a read operation, but does not specify if this requires active monitoring, permissions, or affects browser state. It lacks details on output format, size limits, or performance impact, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to understand, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (exporting network logs), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic action but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output specifics, leaving the agent with insufficient information for optimal use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter ('includeContent') fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 action ('Export') and resource ('full network activity log in HAR format'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_net_get_requests' or 'browser_net_start_monitoring', which might also involve network activity, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'browser_net_get_requests' for real-time monitoring or 'browser_net_start_monitoring' for ongoing logging. It mentions 'see browser_docs' for more info, but this is not explicit usage advice within the description itself.

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