Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• browser.list_memory_profilesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond confirming the read-only nature.

  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 with no unnecessary words, achieving maximum conciseness.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, straightforward purpose) and strong annotations, the description adequately covers the context, though it lacks return format details.

  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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies as the description adds no parameter-specific meaning.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (all saved memory profiles), accurately distinguishing it from related tools like get_memory_profile and save_memory_profile.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage for listing saved profiles but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions.

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

• browser.find_elementsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not elaborate on behavioral traits beyond returning element data. It does not clarify whether the tool modifies browser state (e.g., scrolling) or has side effects. Given that annotations already cover some aspects, the description adds minimal extra transparency.

  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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states functionality and return data, the second provides usage context. There is no redundant information, and every word adds value.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  The tool is simple with three parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and return data, which is sufficient for basic usage. However, it omits details like error handling, performance considerations for large selectors, or the exact format of the bounding box. Still, given the low complexity, it is adequately complete.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  The input schema has 33% description coverage; only session_id has a description. The tool description does not explain the 'limit' parameter (default 20, max 100) or the 'selector' parameter (CSS format). It mentions returning 'all elements' but does not clarify the effect of the limit, which could mislead an agent into expecting unlimited results.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool finds all elements matching a CSS selector and returns specific properties (text, href, etc.). The verb 'find' and resource 'elements' are unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'browser.list_memory_profiles' which has a completely different purpose.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description includes a usage hint 'Useful before clicking or scraping multiple items,' providing context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools for similar tasks, but the sibling tool is unrelated, so differentiation is not critical.

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