Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• execute_jsC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions execution but lacks details on permissions needed, potential side effects (e.g., page modifications), error handling, or execution environment. This is inadequate for a tool that performs code execution.

  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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function 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 the complexity of executing JavaScript on a webpage, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, return values, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use this tool 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 all parameters (url, script, steps). The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints, but doesn't contradict it 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 ('Execute JavaScript code') and target ('on a webpage'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_console_logs or get_html, which also interact with webpages but for different purposes.

  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 get_html or screenshot, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints. It simply states what the tool does without context for selection.

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

• get_console_logsC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this requires browser automation, what types of console logs are captured (e.g., errors, warnings), whether it's a read-only operation, or any limitations like timeouts or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

  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 unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp immediately.

  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 interacting with webpages and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like what the tool returns (e.g., log format, error handling), behavioral constraints, or how it differs from siblings. For a tool with two parameters and no structured safety hints, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

  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, clearly documenting both parameters ('url' and 'steps'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of console logs or how steps interact with log capture. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 ('console logs of a webpage'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_js' or 'get_html', which might also interact with webpage content, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 like 'execute_js' (which might execute JavaScript and potentially capture logs) or 'get_html' (which retrieves HTML content). There's no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the webpage needs to be loaded first, or any exclusions.

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

• get_htmlC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves—e.g., whether it follows redirects, handles authentication, respects rate limits, or returns errors. This leaves critical operational details unspecified.

  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 wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration, 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two parameters and potential behavioral complexity. It doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., raw HTML, status codes), error handling, or dependencies, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer.

  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 'steps') thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the interaction between parameters or providing examples of 'steps' usage, resulting in a baseline score.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('HTML content of a webpage'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_js' or 'screenshot', but the core function 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 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 'execute_js' or 'screenshot'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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

• screenshotC
  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 lacks details on permissions needed, potential rate limits, output format (e.g., image type), error handling, or whether it's a read-only or mutative operation, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

  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, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

  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 webpage interaction and screenshot capture), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical context like what the output returns (e.g., image data or file path), error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent under-informed.

  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 (url, full_page, steps). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying webpage capture, which is redundant with the schema's details. 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 verb ('Take') and resource ('screenshot of a webpage'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like execute_js or get_html by focusing on visual capture rather than code execution or HTML retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name 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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_html for content extraction or execute_js for interactive actions. The description implies usage for webpage capture but offers no context about prerequisites, limitations, or comparative scenarios with sibling tools.

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