Leapfrog MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It effectively explains return behavior ('Returns a fresh snapshot if the page navigated, or just the action result'), clarifies mechanical details ('mouse.down() + wait + mouse.up()' for holdDuration), and documents action-specific constraints. Could be improved by stating element waiting behavior or error handling.

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?

Highly information-dense without redundancy. Structure logically flows from general capability → target syntax → action-specific requirements → return behavior. Every clause serves a distinct purpose, though the density approaches the upper limit for single-paragraph readability.

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 15 parameters and multi-modal behavior (15 distinct actions), the description adequately covers the complexity by documenting conditional requirements for each action type. Explains output behavior despite absence of formal output schema. Minor gap: could mention behavior when elements are not yet present.

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?

While schema has 100% description coverage (baseline 3), the description adds critical semantic context: explaining @eN reference syntax, the target/target2 relationship for drag operations, and that resize requires no target. These relationships between parameters are not captured in the isolated schema field descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Perform a browser interaction' followed by a comprehensive list of specific actions (click, fill, type, check, etc.), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like 'navigate' (page loading) and 'snapshot' (observation). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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?

Provides concrete guidance on using '@eN refs from navigate/snapshot as the target,' implicitly indicating this tool should be used after those sibling tools. Documents conditional parameter requirements (e.g., 'drag: requires target and target2'). However, lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance versus alternatives like 'wait_for' or 'batch_actions'.

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