Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• browser_analyze_pageB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. The term 'analyze' hints at read-only non-destructive behavior, but it does not explicitly state that the page is not modified, nor does it mention any safety or side-effect considerations. The lack of explicit behavioral disclosure is a notable gap.

  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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Analyze') and the resource ('current page structure'), with no filler or redundant wording. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  For a low-complexity tool with fully described parameters, the description adequately conveys the core purpose. However, since no output schema exists, the description should provide some indication of what the analysis returns (e.g., a structured report or list of elements), and it does not. The behavior of maxDepth is also not clarified, leaving some expectations unmet.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds general context about forms and interactive elements but does not explain parameter-specific behavior beyond what the schema already provides, so no additional credit is warranted.

  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?

  The description uses the specific verb 'analyze' and clearly identifies the resource as the current page structure, forms, and interactive elements, with the goal of understanding page flow and functionality. It is clear and informative, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like browser_get_elements, which may overlap in functionality.

  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 when to use the tool (when understanding page structure and flow is needed) but provides no explicit comparison with alternatives like browser_get_elements or browser_extract_text, nor any exclusions or conditions. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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

• browser_navigateB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether navigation waits for the page to load, whether it returns a status, or any side effects (e.g., leaving the current page). The description is too minimal to convey expected behavior beyond the literal action.

  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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb 'Navigate' and the resource. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary elaboration.

  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?

  The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is not required to explain return values. However, it could benefit from stating whether navigation is synchronous or how it interacts with subsequent browser tools. It is minimally viable for a simple navigation action.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The input schema covers the single 'url' parameter with a format and description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, thus the baseline of 3 applies.

  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 (Navigate) and the target (a specific URL in the browser). It distinguishes this tool from its siblings (browser_analyze_page, browser_extract_text, browser_get_elements) because navigation is a distinct operation from analyzing, extracting, or getting elements.

  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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. It simply says 'Navigate to a specific URL' with no context on how this fits into a workflow or when it would be preferred over using the other browser tools.

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

• browser_extract_textA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function and does not mention return format, whether hidden elements are included by default, or any side effects. The includeHidden parameter hints at behavior, but the description itself adds no transparency.

  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 succinct sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action 'Extract text content'. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

  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?

  The tool is simple with two optional parameters, and the description plus schema cover the basic mechanics. However, without an output schema or annotations, the agent does not know the return format or details about hidden text handling. It is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema coverage is 100%, as both selector and includeHidden have descriptions. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only repeating the CSS selector concept. It does not clarify selector syntax or behavior for missing elements, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 (extract text content) and the resource (current page or specific elements using CSS selectors). It immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_navigate and browser_get_elements, which target navigation and element retrieval, respectively.

  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 implicitly defines when to use the tool (when text content is needed) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as browser_get_elements or browser_analyze_page. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling is more appropriate for non-text retrieval.

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

• browser_get_elementsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is 'Get detailed information', implying a read-only action, but it does not disclose potential behaviors such as pagination limits (maxResults default 20), inclusion of attributes, error handling when no elements match, or any permissions/rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety net.

  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, focused sentence that front-loads the core operation ('Get detailed information about elements matching a CSS selector') and adds a brief usage hint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or tangential detail.

  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?

  The tool is relatively simple (3 params, no output schema), but the description does not fully compensate for the missing output schema. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., text, attributes, position) or how maxResults and includeAttributes shape the response. While it gives a general sense of page structure understanding, it leaves the response format ambiguous. This is adequate but with clear gaps.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter (selector, maxResults, includeAttributes). The description adds only the high-level notion of 'matching a CSS selector', which maps to the required selector parameter. It does not add meaning beyond the schema for maxResults or includeAttributes, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 tool's function: 'Get detailed information about elements matching a CSS selector'. The verb 'get' plus the resource 'elements matching a CSS selector' is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like browser_navigate (navigation) and browser_extract_text (text extraction). The added context 'useful for understanding page structure and interactive elements' reinforces its purpose.

  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 for 'understanding page structure and interactive elements', which gives situational context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_analyze_page or browser_extract_text, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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