Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• capture_screenshotA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does so effectively. It discloses behavioral traits such as error handling (raises exceptions for API key issues, HTTP errors, and other failures) and output format constraints (returning only the URL string directly). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication details beyond the API key note.

  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 well-structured with sections for Args, Returns, Usage Note, and Raises, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized, though the Returns section is slightly verbose; every sentence adds value, such as clarifying output handling and error conditions.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, return behavior, and error handling, providing all necessary context for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly without gaps.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that the 'url' parameter is 'The URL to capture a screenshot of', clarifying its purpose and usage, fully compensating for the schema's lack of documentation.

  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 ('captures a screenshot') and target resource ('of the specified URL'), with explicit output details ('returns only the access URL'). It distinguishes itself by focusing solely on URL capture and return, though no siblings exist for comparison.

  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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (to capture screenshots of URLs and return access URLs) and includes explicit usage notes about how to handle the output. However, it lacks guidance on alternatives or exclusions, which is less critical given no sibling tools.

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