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. It states the tool opens a new page/tab and optionally navigates to a URL, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like: whether this requires specific permissions, if the page becomes active/focused, what happens if the URL is invalid, if there are rate limits, or what the return value is (since no output schema). The description is too basic for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 very concise (one sentence plus a reference) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the parenthetical '(see browser_docs)' adds little value without context and could be considered slightly wasteful, as it doesn't explain what the docs contain. Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly 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 complexity (a mutation tool that opens new browser pages), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover important aspects like error conditions, return values, focus behavior, or interaction with sibling tools (e.g., browser_switch_page). The reference to 'browser_docs' is insufficient without elaboration, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 (the 'url' parameter is documented as 'Optional URL to navigate to'), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it only mentions 'see browser_docs' without explaining URL formats, defaults, or constraints. Thus, it meets the minimum but doesn't enhance understanding.

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: 'Open a new browser page (tab)' with a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('new browser page/tab'). It distinguishes from siblings like browser_navigate (which navigates existing pages) and browser_list_pages (which lists pages). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from browser_switch_page (which switches between existing pages), so it's not a perfect 5.

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: it references 'browser_docs' for more information, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of browser_navigate for initial page opening or how it relates to browser_list_pages. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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