Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• browse_webpageC
  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 extracts content but fails to describe critical behaviors such as error handling (e.g., invalid URLs, network issues), performance traits (e.g., timeouts, rate limits), or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates beyond its basic function.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity. The structure is clear and direct, earning a high score for conciseness.

  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 (web scraping with optional selectors), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'content' includes (e.g., text, links, structure), how selectors are applied, or potential limitations (e.g., JavaScript-rendered content). This leaves the agent with insufficient context for 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('url' and 'selectors') adequately. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional CSS selectors for specific elements,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax, examples, or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 ('Extract') and resource ('content from a webpage'), and mentions optional CSS selectors for refinement. It distinguishes the tool's core function effectively, though without sibling tools, differentiation isn't applicable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'content' entails (e.g., text, HTML, metadata), 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, prerequisites, or limitations. It mentions optional CSS selectors but doesn't explain when they are beneficial or necessary. With no sibling tools, context for usage is minimal, but the absence of any usage context results in a low score.

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