Safari MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that waiting applies to 'page load or element', explaining what triggers completion. However, it omits error handling (what happens if click fails vs wait fails), atomicity guarantees, and side effects beyond the schema's timeout parameter.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence front-loads the core action; second provides usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a 4-parameter compound action tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract (click+wait) and distinguishes it from siblings. Minor gap: lacks explanation of failure modes or what constitutes successful completion beyond the parameter descriptions.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters documented). The description implicitly references 'selector/text' via 'Click an element' and 'waitFor' via 'wait for the result', but adds no syntax details, format examples, or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the compound action: 'Click an element AND wait for the result (page load or element)'. It clearly identifies the resource (element) and the dual nature of the operation, distinguishing it from simple click operations.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use instead of click + wait_for separately'. This clearly identifies when to use this tool versus using safari_click and safari_wait_for individually, directly naming the alternative approach.

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