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 captures a heap snapshot but doesn't describe what that entails—whether it's a blocking operation, how long it takes, memory implications, or what the output looks like. The reference to 'browser_docs' hints at external details, but the description itself lacks critical behavioral traits like performance impact or result format.

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 and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in a single sentence. The reference to 'browser_docs' adds minimal bulk but could be considered slightly vague. Overall, it's efficient with no wasted words, though it lacks structural elements like bullet points or examples that might aid clarity.

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 capturing heap snapshots (a performance-intensive operation), the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain behavioral aspects like execution time, memory usage, or output format. The reference to 'browser_docs' suggests external resources, but the description itself doesn't provide enough context for safe or effective use by 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, with one parameter 'reportProgress' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or context for when to enable progress reporting. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter 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 with a specific verb ('Capture') and resource ('heap snapshot'), and specifies it's for 'memory analysis'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'browser_perf_get_heap_usage' by focusing on snapshot capture rather than usage metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, and the reference to 'browser_docs' is vague.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'see browser_docs' which implies external documentation, but within the description itself, there's no indication of prerequisites, timing, or comparison with sibling tools like 'browser_perf_get_heap_usage' or other performance tools. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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