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 mentions that recording saves to a file path but doesn't describe what gets recorded (e.g., entire browser window, specific page), performance implications, permissions needed, or error conditions. The reference to 'browser_docs' suggests more details exist elsewhere, but the description itself lacks critical behavioral context.

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 very concise (one sentence plus a reference) and front-loaded with the core action. However, the parenthetical reference to 'browser_docs' feels tacked on and doesn't integrate smoothly, slightly reducing structural 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 starting video recording (a stateful, potentially resource-intensive operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns, error handling, dependencies (e.g., must a page be open?), or interaction with 'browser_stop_video_recording'. The reference to external docs doesn't compensate for these gaps 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'path', which is documented in the schema as 'Path to save the video file'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Start recording') and resource ('browser session as video'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'browser_stop_video_recording' beyond the obvious start/stop distinction, nor does it explain what constitutes a 'browser session' in this context.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browser_screenshot' or prerequisites for video recording. No explicit when/when-not or alternative usage context is provided.

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