Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• browser_observeC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions launch/adopt and URL handling but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it opens a new window, modifies browser state), auth requirements, or blocking behavior. The phrase 'native UI' is vague.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single sentence that conveys multiple aspects (launch/adopt, optional URL, return type). It is reasonably concise, though slightly long. No redundancy.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the absence of an output schema, the description should clarify the return format. It only says 'return a browser-window or browser-owned file-dialog observation,' which is too vague. Parameter explanations are missing, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at 'targetUrl' ('optionally handle a target URL') but does not name or explain either parameter, and 'inlineImage' is entirely absent. This adds minimal value over the raw schema.

  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 verb ('launch or adopt'), resource ('Windows browser'), and the outcome ('return a browser-window or browser-owned file-dialog observation'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_act and browser_stop by focusing on observation.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (siblings are browser_act, browser_status, browser_stop). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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

• browser_actB
  3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only says 'run one native mouse or keyboard action' without disclosing side effects, token lifecycle, reversibility, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a tool performing potentially destructive actions.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single sentence, highly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it omits important details that would improve usability, slightly reducing its effectiveness.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the complexity of the action parameter (13 variants) and no output schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain how to construct actions, the meaning of 'fresh' token, or what the tool returns, making it incomplete for practical use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of the observationToken or action parameters. It does not elaborate on the complex action structure, leaving agents to infer meaning solely from the schema, which is inadequate for effective selection and invocation.

  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 'Run one native mouse or keyboard action against a matching fresh browser_observe token,' which specifies the verb (run), resource (action against browser), and distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_observe (observation) and browser_stop (stop).

  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 implies usage context by mentioning 'matching fresh browser_observe token,' indicating dependence on the browser_observe tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, leaving room for ambiguity.

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

• browser_statusB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 correctly indicates a read operation ('Return'), but does not disclose error scenarios (e.g., when the browser is not running), rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but not fully transparent.

  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 a single, well-structured sentence. Every word adds value, no redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is brief. While it enumerates the items returned, it offers no explanation of their meaning or format. For a status-checking tool, more context (e.g., types or example output) would improve completeness.

  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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. Per scoring guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information beyond the schema.

  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?

  Description uses the specific verb 'Return' and lists the exact resources/states (MCP transport, native input driver, etc.). It clearly indicates the tool retrieves status information. Though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like browser_act or browser_observe, the name and description make the purpose clear.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., browser_observe for observations, browser_act for actions). The description implies it's for checking status, but lacks context or examples of appropriate usage.

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

• browser_stopA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses releasing native input state and optional browser closing, but lacks details on the state after stopping (e.g., resumability, side effects).

  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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the usage condition. No unnecessary words.

  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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and usage context adequately. Minor gaps exist (e.g., what happens to browser state if not closed), but overall it is 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?

  Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by linking 'optionally close' to the closeBrowser boolean parameter. It clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's bare boolean type.

  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 action 'Release held native input state' and 'optionally close the tracked browser', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_act, browser_observe, and browser_status by focusing on stopping/releasing.

  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 explicitly says 'only when the user task asks for it', providing a clear condition for when to use the tool. While it doesn't list alternatives, the context of sibling tools implies different purposes.

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