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 mentions that the tool 'get results showing used vs unused code,' which implies it returns coverage data, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires prior coverage to be started, what format the results are in, or if it has side effects like stopping ongoing monitoring.

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 concise with two clauses, but it's not optimally structured. The first part states the action and outcome clearly, but the second part 'see browser_docs' is a vague reference that doesn't add immediate value. It could be more front-loaded with essential usage information.

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 complexity of a performance coverage tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'coverage' refers to, how results are structured, or dependencies like needing to start coverage first. The reference to 'browser_docs' suggests missing details that should be in the description itself.

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 parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is fine here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain, and the schema fully covers this aspect.

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: 'Stop coverage and get results showing used vs unused code.' It specifies the action (stop coverage) and the outcome (get results showing code coverage). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'browser_perf_start_coverage', which would be needed for a score of 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 by referencing 'browser_docs' for more information, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. There's no explicit context on when to invoke it, such as after starting coverage with 'browser_perf_start_coverage'.

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