Leapfrog MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses output format (compact snapshot), ref system mechanics, and size constraints. However, omits behavioral details like error handling on invalid URLs, navigation lifecycle events, or state mutation characteristics (though 'waitUntil' parameter implies some lifecycle).

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?

Three dense sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with core function (navigate + snapshot), followed by usage integration (act tool), and comparative value proposition (token efficiency).

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?

No output schema exists, but description adequately covers return value format (compact snapshot, refs, token size) and sibling integration. Absence of error behavior descriptions or explicit navigation side-effects prevents a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics (parameters are self-evident in schema), but adds crucial context about the @eN reference system which clarifies the session/output relationship.

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?

Clear specific action ('Navigate to a URL'), output type ('compact accessibility snapshot'), and unique identifier system ('@eN refs'). Explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'snapshot' via the token size comparison (200-500 vs 15,000).

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?

Explicitly identifies integration pattern with sibling 'act' tool ('Refs... can be passed directly to the act tool'). Implicitly guides selection via token size comparison vs Playwright MCP alternative. Lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' or prerequisite statements (e.g., session requirements).

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