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 states the tool retrieves 'current' statistics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires an active browser session, has side effects, or details the return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a reference to documentation for further details. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more self-contained.

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 has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral context, return values, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more completeness would be beneficial for a performance monitoring tool.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully handles parameters, and the description doesn't add unnecessary details.

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 current JavaScript heap usage statistics'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('JavaScript heap usage statistics'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_perf_get_metrics' or 'browser_perf_get_performance_metrics', 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It references 'browser_docs' for more information, but this is not a direct usage instruction. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling performance tools, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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