Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• browserC
  2.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'browse' and 'interact' but doesn't specify whether this is read-only or allows mutations, what permissions or authentication might be needed, rate limits, or what 'interact' entails (e.g., clicking, form submission). It lacks critical behavioral details for a tool with web interaction capabilities.

  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 concise with two short phrases: 'Browse websites' and 'interact with web content'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more structured. There's no wasted text, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently detailed.

  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 web browsing/interaction, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage for the single parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or the scope of interactions. For a tool with potential side effects and rich functionality, this is inadequate.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'parameters' should contain (e.g., URLs, actions, content), their format, or how they're used. For a single undocumented parameter, the description fails to add any semantic value beyond the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Browse websites and interact with web content' states a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions 'browse' and 'interact' as verbs with 'websites' and 'web content' as resources, but doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'web-search' or specify what type of interaction is possible. It's vague about scope and 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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'web-search' or other siblings. The description implies a general web browsing context but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. There's no mention of when-not-to-use or comparisons to other tools.

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

• file-ioC
  2.4/5.0
  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. 'Search and access file content' implies read operations, but it doesn't specify whether this tool can modify files, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens during errors. The description is too brief to provide meaningful behavioral context for safe invocation.

  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 very concise with just three words, which is efficient. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise—it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose. The structure is simple but lacks front-loading of critical 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data by explaining return values, error conditions, or parameter usage. For a tool with one parameter and potential file system interactions, this leaves significant gaps.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't mention any parameters at all. The description 'Search and access file content' doesn't explain what the 'parameters' string should contain (e.g., file paths, search queries, access modes). This leaves the parameter completely undocumented.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Search and access file content' states a general purpose (searching and accessing files) but lacks specificity about what resources it operates on (local files, remote files, specific file types) and doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'browser' or 'web-search' which might also access content. It's vague about the exact scope of file 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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browser' or 'web-search'. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. It's left to the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• code-executionC
  2.6/5.0
  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 tool executes code and returns a result, but lacks critical details such as execution environment (e.g., sandbox, permissions), safety implications (e.g., destructive effects, rate limits), or output format. This is a significant gap 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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Execute code and return the result', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence contributes to the core purpose, making it efficient in structure.

  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 code execution (a mutation tool with potential security implications), no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It should address execution context, safety, and result details to be complete enough for an AI agent to use correctly.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  The input schema has 1 parameter ('parameters') with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'parameters' should contain (e.g., code string, language spec, arguments). For a tool with low schema coverage, this is inadequate compensation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Execute code and return the result' states a clear verb ('execute') and resource ('code'), but it's vague about what type of code (e.g., programming language, environment) and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'browser' or 'file-io' that might also involve execution. It's not tautological but misses specificity.

  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 like 'browser' for web-based execution or 'file-io' for file operations. The description implies a general-purpose code execution but offers no context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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

• web-searchC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time information', hinting at dynamic data retrieval, but fails to describe critical traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. 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 the tool's complexity (web search with real-time data), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not address how results are returned, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the single parameter 'parameters' beyond what the schema provides. It adds no meaning regarding what the parameter should contain (e.g., search query format) or how it influences the search. With low coverage and no compensatory details, the description falls short.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool's purpose as 'Search the web for real-time information', which includes a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('the web'). However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'browser' or 'code-execution', leaving the agent to infer distinctions. The purpose is clear but not specific enough to distinguish it from alternatives.

  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 siblings such as 'browser' or 'file-io'. It implies usage for web searches but does not specify contexts, exclusions, or alternatives. This leaves the agent with minimal direction for tool selection.

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