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 stopping and saving, but lacks details on permissions needed, file format, save location, error conditions, or what happens if no recording is active. This is a mutation tool with significant behavioral gaps in disclosure.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core action. The reference to 'browser_docs' adds minimal overhead but serves a purpose, keeping it concise overall.

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 mutation tool (stopping and saving a video recording) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, outcomes, error handling, and dependencies (e.g., requires an active recording started by 'browser_start_video_recording'). More context is needed for safe and effective use.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but with no parameters, this is acceptable. Baseline would be 4 for zero parameters, as it doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 ('Stop video recording') and the outcome ('save the file'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_start_video_recording' beyond the obvious start/stop distinction, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 includes a reference to 'browser_docs' for more information, implying external documentation, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. No context about when-not-to-use or comparisons with siblings is given.

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