Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_chrome_bookmarksA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'will match both bookmark name and URL'. However, it does not mention case sensitivity, partial matching, ordering, or return format, which limits transparency but is acceptable for a simple read-only search tool.

  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-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a clean Args section. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

  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 has a single parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (search scope, matching criteria). It does not explain return values, but the output schema presumably covers that. Minor omissions like edge-case behavior (no results) are not critical for such a straightforward search tool.

  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?

  The input schema has only one required parameter, 'keyword', with no description (schema coverage 0%). The tool description merely restates the parameter as 'keyword: 搜尋關鍵字' (search keyword) without adding semantic detail such as accepted format, examples, or behavior (e.g., case-insensitivity). The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.

  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 'searches Chrome bookmarks by keyword' and specifies that it matches both bookmark names and URLs. This precise verb+resource+scope combination effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like search_chrome_history (history) and list_chrome_bookmark_folders (folders).

  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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool (to find bookmarks by keyword) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like searching history or listing folders. Usage is implied through the clear purpose, but there is no direct comparison or exclusionary guidance.

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

• list_chrome_bookmark_foldersA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It states the primary behavior (list folders with counts) but does not mention any potential nuances such as ordering, read-only status, or behavior with zero folders. This is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks depth.

  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, clear sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

  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 (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully explains the tool's function. It clearly states what will be returned (folders and their bookmark counts) and is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

  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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description naturally adds no parameter-specific details because none exist, and none are 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 lists all Chrome bookmark folders and the number of bookmarks they contain. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource, and the scope is clear, distinguishing it from sibling tools that search history or bookmarks.

  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. It does not mention that this is for browsing whole folder structures while search_chrome_bookmarks is for finding specific bookmarks, nor any other contextual usage rules.

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

• get_recent_historyA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful constraints (time range, max results) and implies a read-only operation via the verb 'get', but it does not disclose return format, side effects, or permission requirements. This is adequate for a simple get but not fully transparent.

  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-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a clean Args block. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

  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 and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lacks only explicit usage guidance and ordering details, but these are minor for a simple get operation.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The description explicitly explains both parameters, including their meaning (hours: lookback period; max_results: maximum return count) and defaults, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

  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 retrieves Chrome browsing history from the last N hours, using a specific verb (get) and resource (Chrome history). This distinctly differentiates it from siblings like search_chrome_history (which searches) and bookmark tools.

  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 (get recent history by timeframe) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_chrome_history or provide exclusions. A brief note about using search_chrome_history for keyword-based queries would improve clarity.

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

• search_chrome_historyA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search matches both web page titles and URLs, and mentions the max_results default. However, it does not state whether it is read-only, potential rate limits, or return format. The behavioral disclosure is minimal but adequate for a simple search operation.

  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 for purpose and behavior, followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler. The front-loaded main sentence immediately conveys the tool's core function.

  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, the description is fairly complete. It explains the search scope, the default result limit, and does not need to detail return values because an output schema exists. However, it does not mention ordering, empty results, or any access prerequisites, which might be expected for a complete picture.

  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 Args section provides clear meanings for both parameters: keyword as the search term and max_results as the maximum number of results (default 100). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it essentially restates what the schema types imply.

  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 searches Chrome browsing history by keyword, specifying that it matches both webpage titles and URLs. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recent_history (which fetches recent history) and search_chrome_bookmarks (which searches bookmarks).

  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 when to use this tool: when you need to search history by keyword. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_recent_history for recent entries' or 'not for bookmarks.' The context is sufficient but lacks explicit discrimination.

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