Safari MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output behavior ('Shows coverage percentage per stylesheet') but fails to explicitly state safety properties (read-only, non-destructive) or performance implications that would help an agent decide when to invoke it.

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 with zero waste. The first sentence establishes the core function (finding unused rules), and the second specifies the output format. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool without output schema, the description adequately explains both the operation and return value format (coverage percentages). It loses one point for not compensating for missing annotations regarding safety/read-only status.

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?

The input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately requires no additional parameter clarification.

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 uses specific verbs ('Analyze', 'find', 'Shows') and clearly identifies the resource (CSS rules, stylesheets). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling 'safari_analyze_page' by explicitly scoping to CSS coverage analysis rather than general page analysis.

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?

The description implies usage through clear functional scoping (CSS coverage analysis), but lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance or named alternatives. It does not clarify when to choose this over 'safari_analyze_page' or other inspection tools.

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