Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• scan_urlA
  3.9/5.0
  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 loading in headless Chromium and running axe-core, but does not mention side effects (likely read-only), permissions, or security considerations. Behavior is adequately, not thoroughly, described.

  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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and context, making it easy 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?

  The description lacks details about return value structure (e.g., output schema), error handling, or pagination. With no output schema, a more complete description of the response format would be beneficial. For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is not fully complete.

  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 all parameters described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides sufficient detail.

  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 action: scanning a URL for accessibility issues using axe-core. It specifies the target (live pages or local dev servers), distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_file or scan_html.

  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 clear context for use: 'Use for live pages (http/https) or local dev servers.' It implicitly excludes non-live content (files, HTML strings, site maps), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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

• scan_fileA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the file:// loading behavior but does not mention side effects, error handling, or whether the file is modified. While safe to assume read-only, more detail on outcomes would improve 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?

  Two sentences are front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

  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?

  Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and key context. However, it lacks explanation of the output format, which is needed since no output schema exists. This gap prevents a higher score.

  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 description does not mention any parameters or add meaning beyond the schema, so it does not exceed baseline.

  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 runs an axe-core audit against a local .html file, specifying the file:// loading mechanism. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by advising against scanning SPAs and directing to scan_url instead.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly states when to use (static-site build output) and when not to (single-page app build files), providing a clear alternative (scan_url). This gives an agent actionable guidance.

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

• scan_siteA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Describes crawling strategy (breadth-first, same-origin links, max pages) and audit behavior. With no annotations, the description covers key behavioral traits, though it omits potential error conditions or performance implications.

  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?

  Three concise sentences, no redundant words, and key information is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes value.

  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 complex tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and when to use it, but lacks details about the return format (e.g., structure of the aggregated report). Sibling tools are noted but not directly compared.

  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%; each parameter already has a description. The overall description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'breadth-first') beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

  Description clearly states it crawls a site breadth-first, runs axe-core audits on each page, and returns aggregated plus per-page results. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on whole-site scanning.

  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?

  Explicitly says 'Use to audit a whole site/app in one call instead of scanning routes one by one,' providing a clear when-to-use scenario. Could be improved by explicitly contrasting with single-page tools like scan_url.

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

• scan_htmlA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the scan runs axe-core in headless Chromium, which is transparent for a read-only scan. However, it does not mention potential limitations (e.g., handling of external resources) or return value details.

  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—two sentences with no extraneous text. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with a clear usage statement, earning high marks for efficiency.

  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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and use case but omits any description of return values or output structure, leaving agents without expectations for what the tool returns.

  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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

  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: running an axe-core accessibility audit on a raw HTML string. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying usage for markup snippets or generated HTML not served at a URL.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use for markup snippets or generated HTML that isn\'t served at a URL.' This clearly defines the use case and implicitly excludes URL-based scans, differentiating from siblings like scan_url.

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