Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_page_structureA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states what the tool does. It fails to mention potential issues like invalid URLs, authentication needs, or rate limits. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

  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, with three clear sentences plus structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

  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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear output) and the existence of an output schema (inferred), the description covers the core functionality. However, it could be more complete by specifying what happens with non-documentation pages or error conditions.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by adding context: 'The URL of the documentation page' clarifies the expected input beyond the schema's bare 'url' field. It adds meaningful, though basic, guidance.

  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 starts with a clear verb ('Extracts') and resource ('heading structure and table of contents'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'extract_code_examples' by focusing specifically on page organization.

  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 implies use when understanding page organization, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_documentation_links or read_web_documentation. No guidance on when not to use it is provided.

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

• get_documentation_linksA
  3.8/5.0
  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. It does not disclose potential behavioral traits such as error handling, handling of relative URLs, JavaScript-rendered content, rate limiting, or authentication needs. The description is minimal and lacks caveats about limitations.

  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 with two short paragraphs and a structured 'Args' and 'Returns' section. The first sentence immediately conveys the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

  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 low complexity (2 parameters, none required unless url), no annotations, and the existence of an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description is largely complete. It covers the inputs and basic behavior. Minor gaps include lack of error scenarios or edge cases, but these are acceptable for a simple extraction tool.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description includes an 'Args' section that explains 'url' as the documentation page URL and 'filter_pattern' as an optional pattern with examples ('api', 'guide'). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though the pattern format (regex vs substring) is not specified. Overall, it provides useful guidance.

  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 all links from a documentation page, which is specific and actionable. The name and description together make it obvious this is for link discovery, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_page_structure' which handles structure, and 'extract_code_examples' which handles code. While not explicit, the differentiation is clear from context.

  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 mentions it's 'useful for discovering related docs,' which implies a typical use case. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

• read_multiple_docsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states it 'fetches and extracts content' without disclosing behavioral details like error handling, caching, rate limits, or order of combination.

  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, front-loads the purpose, and uses a clear structure with Args/Returns. 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?

  For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essentials. It lacks details on error handling and combination specifics, but overall it is adequate.

  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 description adds a qualifier ('documentation URLs') beyond the schema's array-of-strings definition, but it is minimal and the schema is straightforward.

  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 reads multiple documentation pages and combines their content, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_web_documentation (singular) and get_page_structure.

  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?

  It provides clear context: 'useful when documentation is spread across several pages.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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

• read_web_documentationA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it fetches and extracts content, and specifies output formats and return content (title and metadata). However, it does not mention potential issues like rate limits, error handling for non-documentation pages, or behavior with non-text content. The disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.

  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 with two paragraphs and an Args/Returns block. Every sentence adds value: verb+resource, intended use, parameter explanations, and return description. No unnecessary text.

  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 simplicity (two parameters, one required), the existence of an output schema, and sibling tools providing context, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return values, and intended use. No gaps are apparent.

  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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the 'url' parameter (URL of the documentation page) and the 'output_format' parameter (options: 'markdown' default or 'text'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property definitions.

  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 fetches and extracts clean documentation content from a web page. It uses a specific verb and resource (reading documentation), and the name aligns with its purpose. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like extract_code_examples, the description implies it is for the main content, which is distinct enough.

  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 says it is 'designed to read documentation websites', which implies appropriate usage. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using get_page_structure for structural details). The context is implied but not directive.

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

• extract_code_examplesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states it extracts all code blocks and returns them with detected languages, but does not disclose potential failures, format, or side effects. Adequate but could be more detailed.

  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 with two sentences plus an Args and Returns section. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff.

  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?

  The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema. The description covers the main behavior and return values. Missing details on errors or edge cases, but overall complete for the context.

  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?

  With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds value by specifying the parameter as 'The URL of the documentation page'. For a single simple parameter, this is sufficient.

  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 'Extracts' and the resource 'code examples/blocks from a documentation page'. It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., get_documentation_links, get_page_structure) by specifying extraction of code blocks specifically.

  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 implies usage for finding implementation examples and code snippets, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides enough context to differentiate from sibling tools.

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