browser_eval

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool doesn't drive the browser but points to an external CLI. Lacks details on installation requirements, potential side effects, or system permissions needed, which is a gap for a setup tool.

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 three sentences plus an additional paragraph. It is relatively concise but could be more structured (e.g., separate usage from behavior). No wasted words, but the middle sentence about what it doesn't do could be integrated.

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 covers purpose and usage context but omits parameter details and doesn't explain output or return values. For a simple tool with one optional param and no output schema, the missing parameter guidance is a notable gap.

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 one optional string parameter 'task' with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what 'task' is, how to use it, or what values are expected, leaving the agent with no guidance beyond the schema.

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 it sets up browser automation via agent-browser CLI. It distinguishes from sibling tools (nextjs_*) which are not browser-related. However, it includes a negative statement ('does NOT drive the browser itself') that adds clarity but also could be confusing.

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?

Explicit usage condition: 'Call this when you need to open pages, click, type, screenshot, or capture console errors in a real browser.' It also notes that direct CLI usage is faster than MCP. No explicit when-not-to or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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