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 mentions waiting for an element to appear but does not specify what happens on success (e.g., returns the element, continues execution) or failure (e.g., throws timeout error), nor does it discuss side effects like blocking execution or resource usage. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 is front-loaded with the core action and includes a reference to documentation. While concise, the reference to 'browser_docs' could be seen as slightly extraneous if not integrated, but overall, it avoids waste and is well-structured.

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 complexity (involving asynchronous waiting and potential errors), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or interaction with other browser tools. For a wait operation in a browser context, more context on behavior and outcomes is needed to be fully helpful.

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 clear documentation for 'selector' and 'timeout' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of selectors or timeout implications. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 states the tool 'Wait for an element to appear on the page', which clearly indicates its purpose with a specific verb ('Wait for') and resource ('an element'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_wait' (which might be more general) or explain what makes this selector-specific wait unique, making it somewhat vague in 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 this is not explicit usage advice. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an active page), exclusions, or comparisons with similar tools like 'browser_wait', leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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