MCP Safari Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.