Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fetch_websiteC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions fetching and converting to markdown but lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid URLs, network failures), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like beyond 'markdown format'. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external resources.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and outcome, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 fetching external websites (which involves network calls and potential errors) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error conditions, output structure, or limitations, leaving the agent with incomplete information for reliable 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond implying the URL is for a website, which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

  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 action ('fetch') and resource ('specified website') with the specific transformation ('convert to markdown format'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_example_site' or 'fetch_test_site', which likely perform similar functions on different targets.

  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 such as 'fetch_example_site' or 'fetch_test_site', nor does it mention prerequisites like internet connectivity or permissions. It only states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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

• fetch_test_siteB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states the action ('fetch' and 'convert to markdown'), but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as network dependencies, error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the site is unavailable. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves external operations.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action and output format. It is front-loaded with the key information (fetching and conversion) and contains no unnecessary words or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 fetching and converting a website (which involves network operations and data transformation), the description is incomplete. There are no annotations, no output schema, and the description lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or output format specifics. This makes it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation and potential issues.

  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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics beyond the schema. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description does not mislead about parameters, and the absence of parameters is handled adequately.

  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's purpose with a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('test-site'), including the URL 'https://test.com' and the transformation action ('convert to markdown format'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'fetch_example_site' by specifying the exact site, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'fetch_website' or 'list_configured_websites' in terms of functionality.

  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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to choose 'fetch_website' for general fetching or 'list_configured_websites' for listing. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit instructions.

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

• list_configured_websitesB
  3.1/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') but doesn't add context such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'configured' entails. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'configured' means, the return format, or behavioral traits like safety or performance. For a tool with no structured data support, this leaves critical gaps.

  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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, but that's appropriate here, warranting a baseline score above 3 due to the lack of parameters.

  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 verb ('List') and resource ('all configured websites'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_website' or 'fetch_example_site', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  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 like the sibling tools. It lacks explicit context, exclusions, or recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

• fetch_example_siteB
  3.2/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches and converts to markdown, but doesn't describe error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the site is unreachable. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance.

  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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It covers what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or output format specifics. With no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more context about the markdown conversion process or potential limitations.

  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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, making it adequate for this case. However, it doesn't explicitly state that no parameters are required, which could be slightly confusing.

  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's purpose: fetching a specific website (example.com) and converting it to markdown format. It uses specific verbs ('fetch', 'convert') and identifies the resource (the website). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_test_site' or 'fetch_website', which appear to perform similar functions.

  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. It doesn't mention why one would choose this over sibling tools like 'fetch_test_site' or 'fetch_website', nor does it specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for its use.

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