Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• execute_computer_actionC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like side effects or safety. It only states the action is executed, without noting potential destructiveness (e.g., clicks can change state) or if the tool is idempotent.

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The single-sentence description is concise but overly vague. It does not front-load critical details, making it less useful for quick comprehension. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one lacks specificity.

  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?

  The tool is complex with nested objects and multiple action types, but the description omits what happens after execution (return value) and behavioral nuances. No output schema is provided, so the description should compensate but fails.

  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 provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, including nested action properties. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting 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 'Execute a computer action on the sandbox' clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_screenshot and cleanup_sandbox by implying it's a generic action executor, though not explicitly differentiating.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_screenshot or cleanup_sandbox. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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

• create_sandboxC
  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 for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that creating a sandbox likely starts a new environment, consumes resources, or has limitations (e.g., concurrency). The description gives no hint about side effects, permissions, or lifecycle.

  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 conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and clear, though it could benefit from a bit more context without losing 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 has no output schema, no annotations, and 2 parameters, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a sandbox ID) or any post-creation steps. Competing tools like cleanup_sandbox hint at a lifecycle that is not addressed.

  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 covers both parameters (resolution, timeout) with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; for high schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The schema descriptions are concise but sufficient.

  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 'Create' and the resource 'E2B desktop sandbox instance', making the tool's purpose straightforward. It is distinct from sibling tools like cleanup_sandbox or list_sandboxes, which have different actions. However, it lacks a brief explanation of what a sandbox instance is, which could help new users.

  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 (e.g., list_sandboxes to check existing instances). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing sandbox or authentication, or when it is appropriate to create a new sandbox.

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

• get_stream_urlC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling, authentication requirements, or what happens if the sandboxId is invalid.

  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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded but lacks depth.

  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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description should provide return format or error details. It is incomplete for safe agent usage.

  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% for the sandboxId parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

  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 action ('Get') and the resource ('VNC stream URL for a sandbox'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_screenshot and list_sandboxes.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_screenshot or execute_computer_action. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• cleanup_sandboxB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, and the description lacks details on what 'clean up and destroy' entails (e.g., irreversible resource deletion, effect on running processes, required permissions). The agent is left uninformed about the tool's impact.

  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?

  A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's action and object, containing no unnecessary words.

  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 destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain side effects, return value, or usage context, leaving the agent underinformed.

  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 schema already describes the parameter sandboxId as 'Sandbox ID to clean up' (100% coverage). The description adds little beyond restating 'sandbox instance', so no substantial extra meaning is provided.

  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 uses the specific actions 'clean up and destroy' with the resource 'sandbox instance', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_sandbox (creation) and list_sandboxes (listing).

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., needing a valid sandboxId), and no conditions for use or cautionary notes.

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

• get_screenshotA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It correctly identifies the operation as capturing a screenshot but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires a running sandbox, or produces any side effects. Adequate but could include details like output format or potential latency.

  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 sentence that is extremely concise with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic function but omits important context such as what the tool returns (image data or URL?), and whether the sandbox must be active. An agent might need to infer these details.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines the lone parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

  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 (take a screenshot) and the target resource (sandbox desktop). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like execute_computer_action or list_sandboxes.

  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, such as get_stream_url for real-time views or execute_computer_action for interactions. The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• list_sandboxesA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists active sandbox instances, which is a read operation. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as performance implications, authorization needs, or whether listings are paginated or filtered. Basic but adequate.

  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 sentence with no superfluous words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is functional but could be improved by noting what information is returned (e.g., sandbox IDs, states). Currently it is minimal, leaving the agent to infer the return structure.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning, but none is needed.

  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 verb 'list' and the resource 'sandbox instances', with the qualifier 'active', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_sandbox or cleanup_sandbox. It precisely identifies the tool's function.

  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 for viewing active sandboxes, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_screenshot or get_stream_url). No exclusions or context are given.

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