Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• web_searchA
  3.6/5.0
  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 tool uses a real browser and lists configurable backends, but it does not mention side effects, rate limits, required setup, or what 'return results' entails. This gives some context but leaves significant behavioral traits undisclosed.

  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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose is stated first, followed by useful parameter details in a scannable list. Every sentence contributes new information, and there is no fluff or repetition of the schema.

  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 tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, so return structure is likely covered elsewhere. However, the description lacks guidance on when to use the tool, how max_results works, or any prerequisites like browser setup. It is complete enough for a straightforward search tool but misses key context.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the browser and engine parameters, but completely omits query and max_results. The description adds value for two of four parameters, leaving the remaining parameters to be inferred from the schema alone.

  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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search the web via a real browser and return results.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like fetch_page and setup_camoufox. The browser and engine options further sharpen its scope.

  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?

  Usage context is implied through the description of browser and engine options, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving room for ambiguity.

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

• fetch_pageA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is 'main content as plain text' (not raw HTML) and explains browser backend options, including the default. However, it does not mention potential errors, redirects, or handling of dynamic content, leaving some behavioral gaps.

  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 two sentences: the first states the core function, the second lists browser options and usage context. Every sentence adds value, is front-loaded, and there is 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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, browser selection, and a typical use case. It does not mention the max_chars limit or error behavior, but these are marginal for a straightforward fetch 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?

  The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'browser' parameter by listing valid values and the default behavior ('Omit to use the default'). However, it does not explain 'max_chars' or provide any semantics for the required 'url' parameter beyond what is obvious from the purpose.

  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 explicitly states 'Fetch a web page and return its main content as plain text', using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like web_search (searching) and setup_camoufox (configuration).

  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 a concrete use case: 'Useful for reading the full content of a search result URL.' This implies when to use the tool after obtaining a URL via search. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implied workflow.

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

• setup_camoufoxA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Even though no annotations are provided, the description discloses the main behaviors: it runs pip install and python -m camoufox fetch, is a no-op if already installed, and returns current status. It doesn't detail potential side effects or the exact meaning of 'force', but it gives a solid overview of the tool's 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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds useful information. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is logical: purpose, mechanism, conditional behavior.

  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 covers the tool's operation and return type, but it omits the meaning of the 'force' parameter, which is a significant gap for an otherwise simple tool. The output schema exists, so return values are handled structurally, but the parameter gap makes the description incomplete.

  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 description doesn't explain the 'force' parameter at all, and the schema provides no description either. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it doesn't. The agent would have to guess what 'force' does based on the title alone.

  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 function with a specific verb ('Ensure') and resource ('Camoufox stealth browser installed'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (web_search, fetch_page) by focusing on setup/installation, and includes key behaviors like idempotency and status return.

  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 when to use it: any time the Camoufox browser is needed, it ensures it's installed. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are unrelated, making the context clear. It could have been more explicit about calling it before other tools, but the implied usage is sufficient.

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