Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• click_elementC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., if element not found), side effects (e.g., page changes), or performance aspects (e.g., timeouts). More context is needed for a mutation tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with two parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, or interaction context, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand full behavior.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('selector' and 'waitForNavigation') well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Clica em um elemento da página' clearly states the action (click) and target (element on a page), but it's vague about the context (e.g., web page interaction) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_element' or 'type_text'. It's understandable but lacks specificity.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 'type_text' for input or 'get_element' for retrieval. The description implies usage for clicking but offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

• evaluate_xpathC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states basic functionality. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., invalid XPath), performance implications, whether it returns all matches or first match, or if it requires a loaded DOM context. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand tool behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., format of elements), error cases, or dependencies on page state. For a tool that interacts with DOM elements, more context is needed for effective use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter 'xpath' documented as 'Expressão XPath'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as XPath syntax examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the parameter.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb 'avalia' (evaluates) and the resource 'expressão XPath' (XPath expression), specifying it returns matching elements. It distinguishes from siblings like get_dom or query_selector_all by focusing on XPath evaluation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from execute_js which might also evaluate expressions.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 like query_selector_all (for CSS selectors) or get_element (for simpler element retrieval). The description implies usage for XPath evaluation but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

• execute_jsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 executing arbitrary JavaScript in the page context, which implies potential side effects like DOM manipulation or network requests, but fails to detail critical aspects such as security implications, error handling, execution timeouts, or impact on page state.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and context, 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.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of executing arbitrary JavaScript (a powerful and potentially risky operation), the description is insufficient. With no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on return values, error formats, execution constraints, or safety considerations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('code' and 'returnValue') adequately. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of JavaScript code or use cases for toggling returnValue, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('executa código JavaScript') and the context ('no contexto da página'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'evaluate_xpath' or 'query_selector_all' that also execute code-like operations, preventing a perfect score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'evaluate_xpath' for XPath expressions or 'query_selector_all' for DOM queries. It lacks context about scenarios where arbitrary JavaScript execution is preferred over more specific tools.

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

• get_console_logsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving logs 'captured since the last navigation' which adds useful temporal context, but doesn't describe what happens if no logs exist, whether this requires specific page states, what format/log levels are returned, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that states the core purpose. It's appropriately concise and front-loaded with the main action. There's no wasted text, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more detail given the lack of annotations.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that retrieves potentially complex log data, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return format looks like (structured data? plain text?), what happens when clear=true (are logs permanently deleted?), or any error conditions. For a logging tool with zero structured metadata, more descriptive context is needed.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enum values. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('recupera' - retrieves) and resource ('logs do console capturados desde a última navegação' - console logs captured since the last navigation). It's specific about what it retrieves, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like get_network_activity or get_page_info that might also provide logging-related data.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to be on a webpage), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like get_network_activity that might provide different types of logs. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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

• get_domC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states what the tool does (extracts full HTML) but doesn't describe important behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact on large DOMs, if it waits for page load, or what format the output returns. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple extraction tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., string of HTML), doesn't mention behavioral constraints, and provides minimal context about when this extraction is appropriate versus other DOM tools. Given the sibling tools available, more guidance would be helpful.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters or add meaning beyond what the schema provides about 'prettify'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Extrai' meaning 'Extracts') and resource ('HTML completo do DOM atual da página' meaning 'full HTML of the current page DOM'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_page_source (which might return server-side HTML) by specifying 'DOM atual' (current DOM), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible alternatives.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_page_source or execute_js for DOM extraction. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires a page to be loaded) or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose statement alone.

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

• get_elementC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('inspeciona') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what information is returned, whether it waits for element existence, error handling for non-existent selectors, or performance characteristics. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single sentence, zero waste. Every word contributes to the core purpose. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'inspeciona' returns (element properties, HTML, etc.), doesn't mention the optional parameters' effects, and provides no context about the inspection scope or limitations.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions CSS selectors but the schema already provides selector examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('Inspeciona' - inspects/examines) and resource ('um elemento específico' - a specific element) with the method ('usando seletor CSS' - using CSS selector). It distinguishes from siblings like get_dom (entire DOM) and get_page_source (full HTML), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from query_selector_all (which likely returns multiple elements).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_selector_all, evaluate_xpath, or get_dom. The description implies it's for inspecting a single element with CSS selectors, but doesn't provide context about when this is preferable to other element retrieval methods.

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

• get_network_activityC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'recupera' implies a read operation, it doesn't address whether this requires specific browser states, what format the data returns in, whether it's paginated, or if there are rate limits. The 'clear' parameter suggests destructive potential, but this isn't highlighted in the description.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with only two parameters and good schema documentation.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'captured network requests' entails, what data format to expect, or how this tool relates to the browser automation context suggested by sibling tools. The agent lacks crucial context about what this tool actually returns.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'captured network requests' means in relation to the filterType options or clarify the implications of the clear parameter.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Recupera todas as requisições de rede capturadas' clearly states the verb ('recupera' - retrieves) and resource ('requisições de rede capturadas' - captured network requests), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_console_logs or get_cookies, which also retrieve different types of browser data.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison to sibling tools that might retrieve related browser data. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• navigateC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 loading the page completely, but lacks details on error handling, performance implications, or what 'completely' entails (e.g., waiting for resources). This is insufficient for a navigation tool with 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part contributing to understanding.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of a navigation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer usage correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (url, timeout, waitUntil) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('navega para uma URL específica') and the resource ('carrega a página completamente'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_page_info' or 'get_page_source', which might also involve page loading, so it misses full sibling distinction.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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. For example, it doesn't specify if this should be used for initial navigation versus other tools for interacting with page elements, leaving the agent without context for selection among siblings.

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

• query_selector_allC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Busca' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this is a synchronous or asynchronous operation, whether it waits for page load, what happens when no elements match, or any performance implications. For a DOM query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's function. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does - 'Busca' (action), 'todos os elementos' (scope), 'que correspondem ao' (matching criteria), 'seletor CSS' (method). There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given that this is a DOM query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the results return (array of elements? their properties?), whether the limit parameter applies per page or globally, or how this tool interacts with page state. For a tool that presumably returns structured DOM data, more context about the return value would be helpful.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it mentions CSS selectors but doesn't provide examples, syntax guidance, or explain the relationship between selector and limit parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('Busca' - searches/finds) and resource ('todos os elementos' - all elements) with the specific mechanism ('seletor CSS' - CSS selector). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_element' (which presumably gets a single element) and 'evaluate_xpath' (which uses XPath instead of CSS). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives in the description text itself.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_element' (for single elements), 'evaluate_xpath' (for XPath queries), or 'execute_js' (for JavaScript-based DOM queries). There's no mention of prerequisites, performance considerations, or typical use cases for CSS selector queries versus other DOM interaction methods.

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

• type_textC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions typing text but omits critical behavioral details: whether it simulates keystrokes or sets value, error handling for invalid selectors, timing/async behavior, or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, clear sentence in Portuguese with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's core function without unnecessary elaboration.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates in practice.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying text input, aligning with the baseline score when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Digita texto em um campo de input' clearly states the action (type/digit) and target (input field) in Portuguese, making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'click_element' or 'execute_js' that might also interact with input fields, preventing a perfect score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'execute_js' or 'click_element' available, there's no indication of preferred contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for text input operations.

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

• get_local_storageB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), what format the data returns (e.g., key-value pairs), if there are size limits or permissions needed, or if it only works in specific contexts like browser automation. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point with 'Obtém todos os dados do localStorage'.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given this is a data retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what localStorage is, what format the data returns, or any limitations. While the tool is simple, the description lacks context about the data domain and expected output format, which would help the agent understand what to expect.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. It appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Obtém todos os dados do localStorage' clearly states the action (obtains) and resource (all localStorage data) in Portuguese. It's specific about retrieving all data rather than filtered subsets. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_cookies or get_dom, which also retrieve browser storage/state data.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention what localStorage is, when it's available (e.g., only in browser contexts), or how it differs from similar tools like get_cookies or get_console_logs. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

• get_page_infoB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'obtains'), what specific information is returned, potential errors (e.g., no page loaded), or performance characteristics. The vague 'general information' leaves the agent guessing about output format and content.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Extremely concise single sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core functionality. No redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Incomplete for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description doesn't compensate for missing structured data: it fails to explain what 'general information' includes (e.g., URL, title, dimensions), return format, or error conditions. Given the sibling tools provide specific data types, this vagueness leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'obtains general information about the current page' (verb+resource). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_dom (DOM structure), get_page_source (HTML source), and get_console_logs (console data) by focusing on 'general information.' However, it doesn't specify what constitutes 'general information' (e.g., URL, title, viewport), leaving some ambiguity.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for page-level information, but doesn't clarify when to choose get_page_info over get_dom (for structural data) or get_page_source (for raw HTML). No mention of prerequisites like requiring a page to be loaded first.

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

• get_page_sourceB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is extracted (source code, scripts, styles, resources) but doesn't cover important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, network dependencies, or output format (e.g., raw HTML string). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes relevant details (scripts, styles, resources) without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, 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.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (extracting page source with optional inclusions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what is extracted but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or return values. It meets a basic threshold but has clear gaps, especially in guiding the agent on how and when to invoke it effectively.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (includeScripts and includeStyles) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond implying that scripts and styles are included by default. Since the schema already provides full coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what's in the structured data.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Extrai todo o código fonte da página incluindo scripts, styles e recursos' (Extracts all page source code including scripts, styles, and resources). It specifies the verb (extract) and resource (page source code) with scope details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_dom or get_page_info, which might also retrieve page-related data.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for full HTML extraction vs. DOM structure) or when to prefer siblings like get_dom (for parsed DOM) or get_page_info (for metadata). Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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

• screenshotB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('captura') but doesn't explain key behaviors: for example, whether it saves the screenshot to a file (implied by 'path' parameter but not explicitly stated), if it requires specific permissions, or what happens on failure. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's operation and 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese: 'Captura uma screenshot da página ou de um elemento específico.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose, 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.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output handling. Without annotations or an output schema, more information on what the tool returns (e.g., file path confirmation or error messages) would improve completeness, but it's not entirely inadequate.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'fullPage' for capturing the entire page with scroll, 'path' for saving location, 'selector' for CSS element). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, as it only mentions capturing a page or element without detailing parameters. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Captura uma screenshot da página ou de um elemento específico' (Captures a screenshot of the page or a specific element). It specifies the verb 'captura' and the resource 'página' or 'elemento específico', making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_page_info' or 'get_dom', which might also provide visual or structural information, so it doesn't reach a 5.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, such as requiring a page to be loaded, or compare it to siblings like 'get_page_info' for textual data. Without such context, users might struggle to choose between this and other tools for capturing page information.

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

• get_cookiesB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool does ('gets all cookies') but lacks behavioral details such as whether it requires specific permissions, the format of returned data, error conditions, or if it's a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or usage context. Without annotations or output schema, more completeness would be beneficial, but it meets a basic threshold.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there is nothing to compensate for.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Obtém todos os cookies da página atual' clearly states the verb ('obtém' - gets) and resource ('cookies da página atual'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like get_local_storage or get_page_info by focusing on cookies. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation (e.g., 'unlike get_local_storage, which retrieves storage data').

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requires a page to be loaded), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like get_local_storage or get_page_info. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly stated.

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