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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists caches and entries, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format is, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 main action and includes a helpful reference to 'browser_docs'. There's no unnecessary verbosity, making it appropriately concise for its function.

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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is somewhat complete but lacks output details since there's no output schema. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are important for a tool with no annotations. This results in a moderate level of completeness.

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 optional parameter 'cacheName' documented as 'Specific cache to inspect (optional)'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List Cache Storage API caches and their entries'. It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('Cache Storage API caches and their entries'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_storage_get_indexeddb' or 'browser_storage_get_service_workers', which also inspect storage types, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'see browser_docs' as a reference, but this is not explicit usage advice. There's no indication of prerequisites, context, or comparisons to other storage-related tools, leaving the agent without clear direction.

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