Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• katalon_manage_object_repositoryC
  2.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  The description mentions 'smart healing capabilities' but does not explain what that entails (e.g., automatic selector repair). No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it fails to disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or permission requirements.

  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 description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks substance. It is not front-loaded with critical information, and its brevity sacrifices clarity.

  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?

  With 5 parameters, 2 enums, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the purpose of each action and the tool's overall role. It fails to do so, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

  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 all 5 parameters with descriptions, so the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description identifies the resource ('object repository') and a general action ('manage'), but 'manage' is vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'katalon_analyze_project' or 'katalon_manage_keywords'. The specific actions (create, update, delete, heal, analyze) are only in the schema, not in the description.

  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 its siblings. The description provides no context for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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

• katalon_manage_keywordsC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'manage' and 'view', omitting behavioral traits like that create/update actions modify data, potential side effects, or required permissions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for transparency.

  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 description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it could be restructured to front-load the specific actions (list, create, update) instead of using the vague 'manage'. It earns its place but is not optimally informative.

  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 (4 parameters, multiple actions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, how different actions work, or preconditions. An agent would lack critical context for effective 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. For example, it doesn't clarify the difference between 'list_builtin' and 'list_custom', or explain the format of 'keywordCode'. The description meets the baseline but adds no value.

  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 'Manage custom keywords and view built-in keywords' clearly identifies the resource (keywords) and implies actions (manage, view). The action enum in the schema confirms the specific operations. It distinguishes from sibling tools like katalon_create_test_case or katalon_execute_test_suite, which deal with different resources.

  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. Sibling tools suggest different tasks (analyzing project, creating test case), but no explicit context or exclusions are given. An agent would need to infer usage from the name alone.

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

• katalon_analyze_projectC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'analyze ... provide insights'. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, or response format.

  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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words, fitting the structure well.

  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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain analysis types, output, or prerequisites, leaving gaps for an analysis tool.

  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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

  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 uses a specific verb+resource ('analyze project structure') and distinguishes from siblings (which are about creation, execution, and management). However, it could be more explicit about the scope of insights.

  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 when/when-not conditions or exclusions are provided.

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

• katalon_execute_test_suiteB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are available, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'real-time monitoring' but does not explain what that entails (e.g., status updates, cancellation, failure handling) or other behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects.

  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 short and front-loaded with the core action. It includes the key phrase 'real-time monitoring' without unnecessary elaboration, though it could benefit from slightly more detail 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 complexity of executing a test suite with 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks essential details about return values, logs, process duration, or success/failure indicators, making it incomplete.

  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% with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 ('Execute') and resource ('Katalon test suite or test suite collection'), and adds 'with real-time monitoring' for extra specificity. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on analysis, creation, or management.

  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 when to prefer analysis over execution, or any prerequisites. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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

• katalon_create_test_caseA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It mentions 'intelligent object identification' but does not explain what that entails. No contradiction with annotations (none exist). Adequate but not detailed.

  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?

  Single sentence, concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, though additional detail could be included without compromising 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 output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, side effects, or how 'intelligent object identification' works, leaving the agent with incomplete context for a 5-parameter tool.

  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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond their schema definitions.

  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 ('Create a new test case') and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on analysis, execution, and management.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough from context. No exclusions or when-not-to-use information provided.

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