mcp_self_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions creating a session and verifying capabilities but does not state whether the tool is safe (read-only or destructive), what side effects occur, or what permissions are needed. Minimal behavioral context is given.

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 clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. No redundant or unnecessary words are present.

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 description lists the capabilities being verified but does not explain what the output or return value is (e.g., pass/fail, report). It also references 'data URL' without clarification. Given no output schema, the description leaves gaps in understanding what the tool produces.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions covering 100% of the parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, 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 performs a self-test of MCP capabilities, listing specific actions like flow, assert, and click. It identifies the tool as a diagnostic/validation tool distinct from sibling browser action tools. However, the Chinese language and lack of an English translation may limit clarity for some AI agents.

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 such as mcp_health_check or browser_smoke_test. The description implies it is for verifying MCP's own capabilities, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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