Browser MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'select options in a dropdown' which implies a UI interaction, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires a page to be loaded, what happens with invalid selectors/values, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The reference to browser_docs suggests missing behavioral information.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that states the core purpose. However, the parenthetical reference to browser_docs suggests the description is incomplete rather than optimally concise. It's front-loaded with the main action but relies on external documentation.

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 UI interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The reference to browser_docs acknowledges the description is incomplete for the tool's complexity and lack of structured documentation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 selects options in a dropdown, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_mouse_click that might also interact with UI elements. The reference to browser_docs suggests incomplete information in the description itself.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this is appropriate versus other interaction methods or what prerequisites might be needed. The reference to browser_docs implies usage details are elsewhere, not in the description itself.

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