Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• screenshotA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 does well by explaining the visual output behavior when 'withLabels' is used (color-coding by element role), which goes beyond the basic screenshot functionality. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, performance implications, or error conditions.

  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 perfectly structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, then presents options in a clear bulleted format, and provides specific details about the color-coding system. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

  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?

  For a tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description does quite well. It explains the tool's purpose, parameter usage, and visual output behavior. The main gap is lack of information about return values or error handling, but given the context, it's reasonably complete.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3. However, the description adds significant value by explaining the practical meaning of parameters: 'ref' screenshots specific elements, 'fullPage' captures scrollable areas, and 'withLabels' shows interactive element labels with detailed color-coding. This provides context beyond the schema's technical descriptions.

  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 'Capture page screenshot' - a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'snapshot' or 'browser_search_snapshot', which might have overlapping functionality. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

  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 provides implied usage guidance through the 'Options' section, explaining what each parameter does. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'snapshot' or provide clear exclusions. The guidance is present but not comprehensive about tool selection.

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

• browser_network_requestsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 effectively describes key traits: the tool automatically initiates capture on first call, returns recent requests with status/timing/response previews, and includes a parameter (clear) that affects state by optionally clearing captured data. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details and parameter usage, all in three concise sentences with zero wasted words. Each sentence adds essential information, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

  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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, automatic behavior, key parameter usage, and return content. However, it lacks details on output format specifics (e.g., structure of 'response previews') and potential side effects beyond clearing, which could be beneficial for full contextual understanding.

  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 (includeStatic, limit, clear) with their types and defaults. The description adds minimal value by mentioning includeStatic's effect ('to include images/CSS/fonts') but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get captured network requests from the browser') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_execute or screenshot by focusing on network monitoring rather than execution or visual capture. It specifies the resource (network requests) and the action (retrieval with automatic capture initiation).

  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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (e.g., 'Automatically starts capturing when first called' and 'Use includeStatic:true to include images/CSS/fonts'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools. This gives practical guidance without full exclusion criteria.

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

• snapshotA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context beyond the input schema. It discloses that refs become stale after navigation, explains the token reduction benefit of compression (~90%), and describes how refs are used with execute tool. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but provides substantial operational guidance for a tool with no annotations.

  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 appropriately sized and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides return format details, usage notes, and parameter explanations in logical sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose, the next two explain ref usage, and the parameter section clarifies options with practical benefits. No wasted words or redundancy.

  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 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the return format (DOM tree with refs), ref usage patterns, navigation constraints, and practical benefits of parameters. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers most essential context, though it could mention error cases or performance characteristics more explicitly.

  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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it restates the purpose of 'search' and 'showDiff' similarly to the schema, and adds the token reduction percentage for 'compress'. Since the schema does heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate with marginal description enhancement.

  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's purpose: 'Get compressed accessibility snapshot with ref IDs.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('compressed accessibility snapshot'), and key output characteristic ('with ref IDs'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on accessibility snapshots with ref IDs, unlike browser_execute (execution), browser_network_requests (network data), browser_search_snapshot (search-focused), or screenshot (visual capture).

  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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Call again after navigation (refs become stale)' and implies usage for tracking page updates via showDiff. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., when to use browser_search_snapshot instead). The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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

• browser_search_snapshotA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by specifying prerequisites, return format ('Matching lines with refs'), and practical use case. It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions, but covers key behavioral aspects like dependency on snapshot and output format.

  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?

  Well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, requirements, returns, options list, and usage context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The options section efficiently documents parameters without repeating schema details unnecessarily.

  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?

  For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about prerequisites, practical use case, and what to expect in returns. It could benefit from more detail about the 'refs' in return values or error handling, but covers the essentials well given the tool's complexity.

  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 thoroughly. The description lists parameters with brief explanations but adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 searches a snapshot with regex, specifying both the action (search) and resource (current snapshot). It distinguishes from siblings like browser_execute or screenshot by focusing on text search within snapshots rather than execution or visual capture.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly states 'Requires: Call snapshot first' as a prerequisite and provides context for when to use it ('to find specific elements in large pages without re-reading the entire snapshot'). This clearly differentiates it from tools like browser_network_requests or screenshot that serve different purposes.

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

• browser_executeA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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 thoroughly describes behavioral traits, including rules for multiple calls, cleanup (e.g., removeAllListeners), load waiting strategies, timeout avoidance, and state verification after actions. It also covers navigation handling, common patterns, and utility functions, providing comprehensive 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.

  Conciseness2/5

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

  The description is excessively long and poorly structured, with extensive code examples, utility function listings, and detailed best practices that could be better organized or referenced elsewhere. It lacks front-loading of critical information, burying key usage guidelines in sections like 'Rules' and 'Checking Page State', making it less efficient for quick understanding.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the complexity of the tool (executing Playwright code with multiple behavioral nuances) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, parameter semantics through examples, and extensive operational details, ensuring the agent has all necessary context 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?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the semantics of the 'code' parameter in detail, such as the available in-scope objects (page, context, state, $) and examples of usage patterns. However, it does not explicitly mention the 'timeout' parameter, which is documented in the schema, leaving a minor gap.

  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 starts with a clear verb ('Execute') and resource ('Playwright code'), specifying exactly what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_network_requests, browser_search_snapshot, screenshot, and snapshot by focusing on code execution rather than network monitoring, searching, or visual capture.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as recommending multiple execute calls for complex logic, avoiding browser.close() unless specified, and using accessibilitySnapshot for simple pages versus screenshotWithAccessibilityLabels for complex layouts. It also contrasts with siblings by emphasizing code execution over other browser interactions.

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