safari_webkit_compat

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it uses CSS.supports(), reports specific categories, and claims no false positives. It does not mention output format or potential performance impact, which would improve completeness.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and includes key details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: method, results, and reliability. Missing output format details would be helpful but not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are no parameters in the input schema, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, but the description adds no confusion and effectively communicates that no input is needed.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'check' and the resource 'every CSS property used on the page', and specifies the method 'CSS.supports()'. It reports unsupported properties, prefix needs, and known quirks. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like safari_css_coverage or safari_get_computed_style.

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 use when needing to verify CSS compatibility with the current Safari engine, and notes that it is tested live with no false positives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like safari_css_coverage.

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