Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• click_elementC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks details on error handling (e.g., if selector fails), side effects (e.g., page changes), performance (e.g., timeouts), or response format. The mention of 'CSS selector' is basic and doesn't cover behavioral traits adequately.

  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 front-loads the core action and method, making it easy to scan and understand 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 (clicking implies interaction that may change state), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after the click, error cases, or dependencies, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

  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 fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the use of a CSS selector, which is covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 action ('Click on an element') and the resource ('in the page'), specifying the method ('using CSS selector'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'type_text' or 'select_option' by focusing on clicking, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'wait_for_element' which also uses selectors.

  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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an element to be visible), exclusions (e.g., not for non-interactive elements), or comparisons with siblings like 'execute_script' for complex interactions.

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

• execute_scriptC
  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 what the tool does but doesn't describe important traits: whether execution is synchronous/asynchronous, error handling, security implications, performance impact, or what happens if the page isn't loaded. For a JavaScript execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information (execute JavaScript in Safari). Every word earns its place.

  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 this is a potentially powerful JavaScript execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., the result of the last expression), error conditions, or security considerations. For a tool that could have significant side effects, more context is needed.

  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 the single 'script' parameter completely. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., examples of valid JavaScript, constraints on script length or complexity). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

  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 ('Execute JavaScript') and target ('in the current Safari page'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like browser automation tools that might have similar functionality, which prevents a perfect score.

  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 (like needing a page to be loaded), exclusions (like what types of scripts might fail), or relationships to sibling tools (like get_console_logs for debugging). This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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

• get_element_textC
  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 but fails to describe critical traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires the element to be visible, potential errors (e.g., if selector doesn't match), or performance implications. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

  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 without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, and every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that interacts with web elements. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, return format (e.g., plain text vs. structured data), or prerequisites (e.g., needing a page to be loaded). For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed to ensure reliable use.

  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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'selector' parameter clearly documented as a 'CSS selector for the element'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid selectors or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('text content of an element'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling alternatives like 'get_page_info' or 'execute_script' that might also retrieve text content, preventing a perfect score.

  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. With siblings like 'get_page_info' (which might return broader page content) or 'execute_script' (which could extract text via custom JavaScript), the agent lacks explicit direction on selection criteria, such as preferring this for direct CSS selector-based extraction.

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

• navigateC
  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 describe what happens after navigation (e.g., page load, potential errors, timeouts), whether it waits for completion, or if it requires specific permissions. This leaves significant gaps for a browser navigation 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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place without 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a browser navigation tool. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like loading behavior. For a tool that interacts with a browser, more context is needed to use it effectively.

  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 the single 'url' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., URL format requirements, validation rules). The baseline score of 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 action ('Navigate Safari') and target resource ('to a specific URL'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'go_back' or 'go_forward' by specifying URL-based navigation rather than browser history. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'refresh_page' also navigates but to the same URL).

  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 when navigation is appropriate versus other browser actions like 'click_element' or 'execute_script', nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., requires Safari to be open). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

• scroll_toC
  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 full burden. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if scrolling is immediate or animated (though the 'behavior' parameter hints at this), whether it waits for the element to exist, what happens on failure (e.g., if selector isn't found), or if it requires a loaded page. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential 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, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

  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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters and potential behavioral complexity. It doesn't cover key aspects like how parameters interact, error handling, or what the tool returns (e.g., success status). For a DOM interaction tool, this leaves significant gaps for 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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (selector, x, y, behavior) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., using selector vs. coordinates) or defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Scroll to') and the target ('specific element or position'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling scrolling tools (none are listed among siblings, but the description doesn't explicitly confirm it's the only scrolling tool).

  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 whether to use it for elements versus coordinates, how it relates to other navigation tools like 'navigate' or 'go_back', or any prerequisites (e.g., needing a page to be loaded first).

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

• select_optionC
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't explain how it works (e.g., does it simulate a click, trigger events, handle dynamic dropdowns?), potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens on success. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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, clearly 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?

  Given this is a mutation tool (selecting implies changing state) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, return values, or error handling, which are critical for an agent to use it correctly in a web automation context.

  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 four parameters. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions (e.g., using 'index' vs 'text' vs 'value') or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Select') and target ('an option from a dropdown'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'click_element' or 'execute_script' that might also interact with dropdowns, missing full sibling differentiation.

  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. With siblings like 'click_element' that might handle dropdown interactions, there's no indication of when 'select_option' is preferred or necessary, leaving usage context unclear.

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

• type_textC
  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 offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., if selector doesn't exist), timing considerations (e.g., waits for element), side effects, or what happens when 'clearFirst' is false. The phrase 'type text' implies interaction but lacks operational details.

  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 despite its brevity.

  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 browser automation tool with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover important context like error handling, timing behavior, visual feedback, or how this integrates with the broader automation workflow alongside sibling 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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, provide examples, or clarify edge cases like special characters in 'text'.

  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 ('type text') and target ('into an input element'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'execute_script' for text input or clarify its specific use case versus other text-related operations.

  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 sibling tools like 'select_option' for dropdowns or 'execute_script' for complex input scenarios, nor does it specify prerequisites like requiring the element to be visible or interactable.

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

• wait_for_elementC
  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 tool waits for an element to appear, implying it may block execution until a condition is met or timeout occurs, but doesn't describe what happens on success (e.g., returns the element, continues execution) or failure (e.g., throws an error, returns null), nor does it mention side effects like page stability or performance impacts. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential timeouts and conditional 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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('wait for an element'), making it immediately understandable. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the target and context ('on the page'), with zero waste.

  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 tool's complexity (involving waiting, timeouts, and visibility conditions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., whether it returns the element or a success status), error handling, or behavioral nuances like polling intervals. For a tool that could fail or have side effects, more context is needed to guide effective use.

  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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'selector' (CSS selector), 'timeout' (maximum wait time in milliseconds), and 'visible' (wait for visibility). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining selector best practices, default timeout behavior, or the interaction between 'visible' and element appearance. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

  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 ('wait for') and target ('an element to appear on the page'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_element_text' (which retrieves text without waiting) or 'click_element' (which requires the element to already exist), but the verb 'wait' implies a temporal aspect that distinguishes it from immediate retrieval or interaction tools.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention using this before interacting with an element (e.g., before 'click_element') or as an alternative to 'execute_script' for dynamic content. The description implies usage in scenarios where elements load asynchronously, but lacks specific when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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

• get_console_logsB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify what 'console logs' include (e.g., errors, warnings), whether it returns real-time or historical logs, permission requirements, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get console logs') and specifies the source ('from the current page'), 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 the complexity (a read operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'console logs' entail, the return format, or any behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively beyond the basic action.

  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, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't have to compensate for any gaps.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('console logs'), specifying the source ('from the current page'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_page_info (general page info) or start_error_monitoring (monitoring errors), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a page loaded), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like get_page_info for other page data. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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

• get_page_infoB
  3.1/5.0
  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 tool retrieves information but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires page load completion, potential latency, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get information') and includes helpful examples ('URL, title, etc.') without over-explaining.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool in a browser automation context. It doesn't explain what specific information is returned (beyond 'URL, title, etc.'), format of the output, or how it interacts with page state. For a tool with no structured data support, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

  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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied as it avoids unnecessary parameter details for a parameterless tool.

  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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('information about the current page'), including examples of what information is retrieved ('URL, title, etc.'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_element_text' or 'get_console_logs', which also retrieve page-related information but focus on different aspects.

  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 scenarios where this tool is appropriate (e.g., retrieving metadata) or when to prefer siblings like 'get_element_text' (for specific element content) or 'get_console_logs' (for browser console data), leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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

• go_forwardB
  3.1/5.0
  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 describe what happens when forward history is unavailable, whether navigation is synchronous/asynchronous, if it waits for page load, or what errors might occur. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a navigation 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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately specifies the browser context. Every word earns its place in conveying essential information.

  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 navigation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes success/failure, what happens after navigation, or how this interacts with other browser automation tools. Given the sibling tools include various browser interaction methods, more context about this tool's specific role is needed.

  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 with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools.

  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 ('Navigate forward') and target ('in Safari history'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'go_back', which performs the opposite navigation action in the same browser context.

  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 'go_back' for backward navigation, 'navigate' for direct URL navigation, or 'refresh_page' for reloading. It lacks any context about prerequisites (e.g., requiring forward history to be available) or exclusions.

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

• refresh_pageB
  3.2/5.0
  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 'refresh' implies a page reload action, it doesn't specify whether this causes data loss on forms, triggers page re-authentication, or affects ongoing operations. No rate limits, side effects, or performance implications are mentioned.

  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 perfectly concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential action and target without any wasted words. Every element ('refresh', 'current', 'Safari', 'page') earns its place in communicating the core functionality.

  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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information about what the tool does. However, for a browser interaction tool that could have side effects (form data loss, re-authentication prompts), more behavioral context would be helpful despite the simple parameter structure.

  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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters, earning a baseline 4 for parameter semantics in this zero-parameter context.

  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 ('refresh') and target ('current Safari page'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'navigate' or 'go_back' which also affect page navigation, leaving room for improvement in 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 like 'navigate' (for loading new URLs) or 'go_back/forward' (for browser history navigation). It lacks explicit context about when this refresh operation is appropriate versus other page manipulation tools.

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

• take_screenshotB
  3.3/5.0
  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 offers minimal behavioral context. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose important traits like whether it saves the screenshot automatically, where it's saved, what format it uses, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens on failure. 'Take a screenshot' implies a write operation, but details are missing.

  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 purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately.

  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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks context about the result (e.g., returns file path or just takes screenshot), error conditions, or dependencies. Without annotations, it should provide more behavioral detail for proper agent use.

  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% for the single parameter 'filename', which is documented as optional. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as filename format constraints or default naming behavior. With high schema coverage, 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 specific action ('Take a screenshot') and target resource ('current Safari window'). It precisely distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_page_info' or 'get_console_logs' which provide different types of page information without visual capture.

  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., Safari must be open), exclusions (e.g., cannot capture hidden windows), or suggest when other tools might be more appropriate for different needs.

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

• go_backA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires page load completion, what happens if no history exists, error conditions, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a navigation 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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable.

  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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after navigation (e.g., page load, return values, errors) or behavioral constraints. For a navigation tool with zero structured coverage, this is inadequate.

  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?

  With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the schema already fully documents the empty input structure.

  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 'Navigate back in Safari history' clearly states the specific action (navigate back) and resource (Safari history). It distinguishes from siblings like 'go_forward' (forward navigation) and 'navigate' (general navigation).

  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 when needing to go back in Safari's history, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'navigate' for specific URLs or 'go_forward' for forward navigation. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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

• start_error_monitoringA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 describes the core action (starting monitoring with optional sending to Claude Code) but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it runs continuously, how errors are formatted, or any rate limits. It adds basic context but misses deeper behavioral traits like error handling or resource usage.

  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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and optional feature without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

  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 moderate complexity (starting a monitoring process with parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers what the tool does but lacks information on return values, error conditions, or operational constraints. For a tool that initiates monitoring, more context on behavior and outputs would be beneficial.

  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 fully documents both parameters ('autoSendToClaude' and 'interval') with descriptions and defaults. The description does not add any additional meaning or clarification beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of sending errors to Claude Code or typical interval values. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

  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 specific action ('Start monitoring Safari for JavaScript errors') and the optional functionality ('and optionally send them to Claude Code'). It uses precise verbs ('Start monitoring', 'send') and identifies the target resource ('Safari', 'JavaScript errors', 'Claude Code'), making the purpose immediately understandable without ambiguity.

  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 by specifying 'Safari' and 'JavaScript errors,' which helps distinguish it from general monitoring tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stop_error_monitoring' or 'get_console_logs,' nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for use, leaving some guidance gaps.

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

• stop_error_monitoringA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Stop monitoring' implies it terminates an existing process, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires prior monitoring to be active, what happens if monitoring isn't running, whether it returns confirmation, or if there are any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

  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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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.

  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, no annotations), the description is complete enough to understand its basic purpose. However, it lacks details about behavioral context (e.g., prerequisites, effects, or error conditions), which would be helpful for a tool that likely interacts with an ongoing process.

  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 doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

  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 specific action ('Stop monitoring') and target resource ('Safari for JavaScript errors'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'start_error_monitoring' and other browser automation tools. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description explicitly indicates when to use this tool by naming the specific action it performs, and the sibling tool list includes 'start_error_monitoring', making it clear this is the complementary tool to stop an ongoing monitoring process. This provides perfect contextual guidance for when to invoke it versus alternatives.

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