Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• extract_timestampsC
  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 what the tool does but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. For a tool that interacts with external webpages, 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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core functionality, earning a top 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the extracted timestamps look like, potential errors, or behavioral traits like network dependencies. For a tool with external interactions, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.

  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 fully documents the parameters. The description does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 action ('extract') and the resource ('timestamps from a webpage'), specifying the types of timestamps (creation, modification, publication). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'batch_extract_timestamps' by implying this is for single URLs, though not explicitly stated. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation, keeping it at a 4.

  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, such as the sibling 'batch_extract_timestamps' for multiple URLs. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, resulting in minimal guidance.

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

• batch_extract_timestampsB
  3.2/5.0
  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 fails to describe critical behaviors: it doesn't mention error handling (e.g., what happens if some URLs fail), rate limits, authentication requirements, output format, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a batch web scraping tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap that leaves the agent guessing about practical usage constraints.

  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 that front-loads the core functionality ('Extract timestamps from multiple webpages in batch') with zero wasted words. It immediately communicates the key differentiator (batch processing) without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand the tool's scope 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 complexity of a batch web scraping tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., array of results per URL, error formats), behavioral aspects like concurrency or retries, or how it differs meaningfully from the sibling tool beyond the obvious 'batch' vs 'single'. For a tool that likely involves network requests and data extraction, more context is needed for effective agent 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with detailed documentation for both the 'urls' array and nested 'config' object parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it doesn't enhance understanding of parameter meanings or usage. However, since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

  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 ('extract timestamps') and resource ('from multiple webpages in batch'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'extract_timestamps' by specifying 'multiple webpages in batch', indicating this is a bulk operation rather than single-page extraction. However, it doesn't specify what format the timestamps will be in or what constitutes a 'timestamp' (e.g., publication dates, modification times, or embedded temporal data).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context through 'multiple webpages in batch', suggesting this tool is for bulk processing rather than single URLs, which differentiates it from the sibling 'extract_timestamps'. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling (e.g., performance trade-offs, error handling differences) or any prerequisites (e.g., URL accessibility, authentication needs). The guidance is present but minimal and not comprehensive.

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