help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get detailed usage instructions and workflow examples' without explaining side effects, return format, or whether the tool is strictly read-only. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap, especially with no annotations to fall back on.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Get', and contains zero waste. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's core function, making it highly concise and 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?

The tool is simple with one optional enum parameter and no output schema. The description is accurate but minimal; it does not explain what each topic covers or what the response looks like. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete, so a score of 3 is fitting.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'topic' parameter and its enum values. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents the parameter well, so 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: 'Get detailed usage instructions and workflow examples for Browser[X]MCP'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource (usage instructions and workflow examples). This distinguishes it from sibling browser automation tools, making its role as a help/instruction tool 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?

The description implies usage—it's a help tool for obtaining instructions—but does not explicitly state when to use it over other tools or mention any alternatives. There are no exclusions or contextual triggers provided. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit, which fits a score of 3.

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