Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• browser_execute_scriptC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Execute JavaScript') but doesn't describe safety implications (e.g., potential for destructive effects, permissions needed), execution context (e.g., runs in page context vs. isolated), or response handling (e.g., returns script results). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool that executes arbitrary JavaScript, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like safety warnings, return value expectations, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., browser_launch). This makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

  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%, with the single parameter 'script' clearly documented in the schema as 'JavaScript code to execute'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as syntax examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 clearly states the verb ('Execute') and resource ('JavaScript in the browser context'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like browser automation tools that might also execute scripts, though no direct siblings with overlapping functionality are listed.

  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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active browser session from browser_launch), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like browser_navigate for navigation tasks. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

• browser_launchC
  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 carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't mention what 'launch' entails (e.g., system resource implications, default configurations, or what happens if an instance already exists). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

  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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

  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?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., what 'launch' does operationally), error conditions, or return values, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.

  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 schema fully documents the single parameter 'headless'. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, resulting in the baseline score of 3 for adequate but no extra value.

  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 clearly states the action ('Launch') and resource ('a new browser instance'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like browser_navigate or browser_execute_script, which prevents a score of 5.

  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 versus alternatives like browser_navigate (for existing instances) or browser_close (for termination). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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

• browser_navigateC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Navigate to a URL' implies a navigation action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it opens a new tab, handles redirects, requires an active browser session, or has any side effects like loading dependencies. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

  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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Navigate to a URL', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.

  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 a navigation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover what happens after navigation (e.g., success/failure indicators, page state), prerequisites like needing a launched browser, or how it interacts with sibling tools. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for proper usage.

  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 schema already documents both parameters (url and waitUntil) with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the impact of waitUntil values on navigation timing. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 'Navigate to a URL' clearly states the action (navigate) and target (URL), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like browser_execute_script or browser_launch, which also involve browser navigation or interaction, so it lacks sibling distinction.

  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 versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for initial navigation after launching a browser or if it should be used instead of other navigation-related tools. There's no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• screenshot_captureC
  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 carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Take a screenshot' implies a read operation, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it captures only visible content or includes off-screen elements, or what happens with dynamic content. The description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic 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 extremely concise at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

  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?

  For a screenshot tool with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the screenshot returns (image data, file path, etc.), how it handles different page states, or the relationship between parameters like 'fullPage' and 'selector'. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

  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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already documented in the schema (which has 100% coverage). The schema fully describes all three parameters with their types, defaults, and enums. The description doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage scenarios.

  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 clearly states the action ('Take a screenshot') and target ('of the current page'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'screenshot_viewport' tool, which appears to be a similar screenshot functionality with potentially different scope.

  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 versus alternatives like 'screenshot_viewport' or other browser tools. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent without contextual usage information.

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

• screenshot_viewportC
  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 carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this requires an active browser session, what format the screenshot returns, if there are rate limits, or what happens when viewport parameters conflict.

  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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately specifies the key differentiator (viewport settings).

  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?

  For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (image format, size limitations), doesn't mention dependencies on browser state, and provides no context about how it relates to sibling browser tools.

  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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond implying viewport customization but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how preset relates to width/height, what happens when fullPage is true with custom dimensions).

  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 clearly states the action ('Take a screenshot') and specifies the scope ('with specific viewport settings'), which distinguishes it from generic screenshot tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'screenshot_capture' tool, which might have overlapping functionality.

  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 versus alternatives like 'screenshot_capture' or other browser tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, context requirements, or comparison with sibling tools.

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

• browser_closeA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires an existing browser instance, what happens to open tabs/data, whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, or any error conditions. For a potentially destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

  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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point.

  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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally complete but lacks important context for a potentially destructive operation. Without annotations or output schema, the description should address more behavioral aspects like prerequisites, effects, and error handling to be fully 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?

  The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. No parameter information is missing or misleading.

  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 'Close the browser instance' clearly states the specific action (close) and target resource (browser instance). It distinguishes from siblings like browser_launch (opposite action) and browser_navigate (different browser operation). The verb+resource combination is unambiguous.

  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 implies usage context - this tool should be used when a browser instance needs to be terminated. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools. No misleading guidance is present.

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