browser_install

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

The description lacks behavioral details. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose idempotency, permissions required, or what happens if Chrome is already installed. A simple 'Install' does not reveal potential side effects.

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 that conveys the tool's purpose without any filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a zero-parameter setup tool, the description is minimal but arguably sufficient. However, it lacks information about when to run it (e.g., once per session), expected return value, or prerequisites like internet connectivity. Sibling tools suggest this is a setup step, but no context is given.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter values. Baseline for 0 params is 4, as the schema already provides full coverage. The description adds no extra parameter information, which is acceptable.

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 installs Chromium for the MCP server. It is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform browser actions like navigation or clicking. A slightly higher score would require more detail on what 'used by this MCP server' entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is the only install tool, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., running before other browser tools) or when not to use it (e.g., if already installed).

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