Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• browse_cookiesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  While annotations are absent, the description explains the stealth parameter's acceptance for compatibility and that actual behavior is server-controlled, adding some transparency. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like network requests, cookie setting by the page, or any required permissions.

  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 efficient sentences: the first states the purpose, the second details return fields. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded.

  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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description covers the core purpose and return structure. However, it omits error handling (e.g., invalid URL), edge cases (empty cookie set), and lacks usage context relative to siblings, leaving some gaps.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds value for the stealth parameter by clarifying it is accepted but not effective, but for the url parameter it merely restates the schema. Overall, moderately helpful beyond schema.

  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 verb 'Navigate' and 'retrieve', the resource 'URL' and 'cookies', and specifies the scope 'all cookies set by the page'. It also lists the returned fields, making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like browse_url or browse_evaluate.

  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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (browse_url, browse_evaluate). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or alternative use cases, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

• browse_evaluateA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals the tool modifies page state (via clicking/filling forms) and returns stringified results, but omits details on side effects (e.g., session changes, error handling).

  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?

  Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary action, the second lists capabilities, making it efficient and front-loaded.

  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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and common use cases. However, it lacks details on return format for failures or async evaluation, slightly limiting completeness.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value for the 'stealth' parameter by explaining compatibility and server control, and the 'expression' examples help, but overall schema already defines parameters clearly.

  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 navigates to a URL and executes JavaScript, listing specific capabilities like extracting data, clicking elements, filling forms, and reading page state. It distinguishes from siblings (browse_cookies, browse_url) by focusing on script evaluation.

  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 lists supported actions but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks when-not guidance or mention of sibling tools, leaving context implied.

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

• browse_urlA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided. Description mentions 'lightweight CDP engine' and that stealth behavior is server-controlled, but lacks details on rendering, timeouts, or error handling, leaving significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

  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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by key guidance. No unnecessary words; every sentence serves a purpose.

  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?

  While purpose and authentication context are covered, the absence of output schema and lack of details about behavior (e.g., whether it executes JavaScript, timeouts) mean an agent may need more information to use the tool effectively.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by contextualizing cookies usage (linking to browse_cookies) and explaining stealth as compatibility, going slightly beyond the schema.

  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 fetches a URL using Obscura's CDP engine, and it distinguishes from siblings browse_cookies and browse_evaluate by focusing on URL fetching.

  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?

  It explicitly tells when to use cookies for authenticated pages and references browse_cookies as the source, but does not provide guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives beyond cookies.

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