safari_inspect_viewport

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the tool's behavior (validation and return of issues) and implicitly indicates a read-only operation by the verb 'inspect'. However, it could explicitly state that the tool does not modify the page.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key details (checks, return format). Every part is necessary and there is 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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately describes the return structure (parsed attributes + severity-tagged issues). The tool has no parameters and a straightforward function, making the description sufficient for an agent to understand its behavior and output.

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 is empty (0 parameters), and the description correctly implies no input is required. Schema coverage is 100%, so the benchmark is met with a baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools.

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 clearly states the tool validates the viewport meta tag against iOS Safari best practices, listing specific checks (width=device-width, initial-scale, disabled-zoom, viewport-fit=cover) and describing the return value (parsed attributes + severity-tagged issues). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like safari_analyze_page or safari_accessibility_snapshot.

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 for viewport validation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. With many sibling tools, more explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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