Browser MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, if it changes browser state, whether it requires specific page conditions, or any side effects. The reference to 'browser_docs' hints at external documentation but doesn't provide actionable 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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose upfront. The parenthetical clarification '(tab)' is helpful, and the reference to documentation is appropriately brief. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more self-contained.

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 tool that performs a state-changing browser operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'switch' entails, how indices are determined, what happens if the index is invalid, or what the tool returns. The reference to external docs doesn't compensate for these gaps.

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 the single parameter 'index' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('switch to') and resource ('different browser page (tab)'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_focus' or 'browser_list_pages', but the action is specific enough to be distinguished by 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It references 'browser_docs' for more information, but doesn't specify whether this is for switching between open tabs, if it requires prior knowledge of page indices, or how it relates to tools like 'browser_focus' or 'browser_navigate'.

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