Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• analyze_page_visualA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses default behavior (viewport screenshot) and output format (structured findings with element refs and evidence). However, it omits details on permissions, cost, latency, or potential side effects, which are moderately important for an AI 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 extremely concise with three focused sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and capabilities, and each sentence contributes valuable information without redundancy.

  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 (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It does not explain parameter interactions, return structure details, or error handling, which are crucial for the agent to use the tool effectively.

  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 low (45%), and the description adds minimal parameter clarification beyond stating the default screenshot mode. Core parameters like prompt, viewport, and wait_until are not elaborated in the description, leaving the agent to rely on the sparse schema descriptions.

  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 tool's purpose: analyzing a webpage visually using screenshot, DOM structure, and MiniMax vision. It lists specific use cases (design critique, UX review, visual hierarchy, etc.) and the methodology, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_image or extract_page_data.

  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 explicitly lists use cases such as design critique and UX review, implying when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or say when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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

• analyze_imageA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it analyzes images and supported formats. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or any side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs.

  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?

  Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  Given the 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, when to use, supported formats, and key constraints (local files, no browser). Does not explain return values but that is acceptable without output schema.

  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 coverage is 100% so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minor value by listing supported file formats, but does not explain parameter semantics further beyond what the schema provides.

  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 tool analyzes local image files using MiniMax vision, specifies no browser involvement, and lists use cases (screenshots, mockups, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling page-related tools.

  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 explicitly says to use for screenshots/mockups/any image and notes 'No browser involved', implying when to use vs page-analysis siblings, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools.

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

• extract_page_dataA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the extraction strategy (DOM-first, escalating to headless browser then MiniMax vision) and explains the use_vision_if_needed parameter. However, it omits potential side effects like page interaction limits or failure modes.

  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 concise: two sentences that are front-loaded with purpose and extraction strategy. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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?

  Given no output schema, 5 parameters with nested objects, the description covers extraction strategy and use cases. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or limitations, which are important for complete context.

  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 coverage is 60% (only 3 of 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds no information for viewport and wait_until, leaving them undocumented. It does provide a schema example for the 'schema' parameter and clarifies use_vision_if_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 tool extracts structured data from a webpage matching a schema, and lists specific use cases like pricing tiers, product info, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on structured extraction vs. image/visual analysis.

  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 provides usage scenarios (pricing tiers, etc.) but does not explicitly say when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives. The 'DOM-first' strategy offers some guidance but no direct comparison to siblings.

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

• inspect_pageA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the two modes (static fetch vs headless browser) and clarifies that no vision model is invoked. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, rate limits, or auth requirements, which are expected but not critical.

  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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides key details. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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?

  Given the complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the primary distinction between modes and the tool's scope. However, it does not describe the output or what data is returned, which would help an agent understand what to expect.

  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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context on modes but does not explain other parameters beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly, the description adds limited additional semantics.

  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 it inspects webpage structure, metadata, and content, and explicitly distinguishes from visual analysis tools. It also notes it does not invoke the vision model, differentiating it from siblings like analyze_image and analyze_page_visual.

  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 context on when to use (understanding a page without visual analysis) and distinguishes two modes (basic vs full) with implications for speed and data depth. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools beyond the implicit exclusion of visual analysis.

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