Browser MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'stops CPU profiling and gets profile data', which implies it's a read operation that terminates an ongoing process. However, it doesn't specify what happens if no profiling is active, whether this requires specific permissions, what format the profile data returns in, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 a single sentence, but the parenthetical reference to 'browser_docs' feels like an afterthought rather than integrated guidance. While brief, it could be more front-loaded by integrating the documentation reference into the main sentence or providing more self-contained context.

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 tool that stops an ongoing process and retrieves data, the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, the description doesn't explain what the profile data contains, what format it returns in, or what happens if profiling isn't active. The reference to external documentation ('browser_docs') acknowledges the incompleteness but doesn't compensate within 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information, which is correct for a parameterless tool. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Stop CPU profiling and get profile data', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_perf_stop_coverage' or explain what distinguishes this profiling operation from other performance tools. The reference to 'browser_docs' suggests additional context is needed elsewhere.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that profiling must be started first with 'browser_perf_start_profile'), nor does it clarify when this should be used over other performance measurement tools. The reference to 'browser_docs' implies documentation exists elsewhere but isn't integrated into the description.

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