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 'pause execution' which implies a blocking wait, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's synchronous, if it affects browser state, error handling, or rate limits. The reference to 'browser_docs' suggests more info is available elsewhere, but the description itself lacks sufficient transparency.

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 directly states the purpose and references documentation. It is front-loaded with the core function and wastes no words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on when to use it, behavioral context, and fails to differentiate from siblings. The reference to 'browser_docs' suggests reliance on external resources, but the description itself does not provide enough information for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 the 'ms' parameter clearly documented as 'Milliseconds to wait'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it does not explain parameter usage, constraints, or examples. 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 tool's purpose: 'Pause execution for a duration'. It specifies the verb ('pause') and resource ('execution'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_wait_for_selector', which has a similar waiting function but with a condition. It's not tautological, but lacks explicit 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 minimal guidance: it references 'browser_docs' for more details, implying external documentation should be consulted. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browser_wait_for_selector' or other timing-related tools. No context or exclusions are provided.

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