Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ihyee_fetchB
  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. It mentions 'fetch and extract clean content' and returns specific data types, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'clean content' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external web 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 front-loaded and efficiently structured in two sentences with zero waste. It clearly states the tool's purpose and outputs without unnecessary details, making it easy to understand 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 web fetching and extraction, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, rate limits, or error cases, and does not explain the structure or format of returned data, leaving the agent with insufficient context 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of 'content_mode' choices or when to use 'render'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 extract clean content') and resource ('from specific web page URLs'), and specifies the return values ('extracted text, summaries, metadata, and links'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on direct URL fetching rather than rendering or searching, though not explicitly named.

  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 for extracting content from web pages, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ihyee_render' or 'ihyee_search'. It provides some context with the 'render' parameter hinting at JavaScript-heavy pages, but lacks clear guidance on tool selection.

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

• ihyee_searchB
  3.4/5.0
  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 key behaviors: uses Google search, fetches and extracts content (clean text, summaries, links), and mentions browser rendering as an option. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'extracted' entails beyond summaries and text.

  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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and adds implementation details without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

  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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and high-level behavior but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with siblings. Without an output schema, it should ideally hint at return values like structured data with links and summaries.

  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 the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying the tool handles search queries and content extraction, which is already covered by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 with specific verbs ('search the web', 'return extracted, summarized content') and resources ('top results', 'Google search', 'result pages'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's a search tool that extracts content, unlike ihyee_fetch or ihyee_render which likely have different 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 its siblings (ihyee_fetch, ihyee_render). It mentions the general function but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent choose between alternatives.

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

• ihyee_renderA
  4.1/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the core behavior ('Force full browser rendering', 'extract its content') and context ('JavaScript-heavy web page'), but lacks details on error handling, performance characteristics (e.g., slower than fetch), or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this provides basic transparency but misses key operational 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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool's action, and the second provides critical context for when to use it. There is zero waste or redundancy.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs complex rendering and extraction. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks information on what 'extract its content' returns (e.g., HTML, text, screenshots), error scenarios, or performance implications. For a 4-parameter tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps.

  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 the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'wait_for' options or 'wait_selector' usage). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

  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 with specific verbs ('Force full browser rendering', 'extract its content') and resource ('JavaScript-heavy web page using Playwright'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying use cases like 'single-page apps, pages behind JS frameworks, or when a regular fetch returns incomplete content', which differentiates it from ihyee_fetch (likely a regular fetch) and ihyee_search (likely a search operation).

  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?

  The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this for single-page apps, pages behind JS frameworks, or when a regular fetch returns incomplete content'), providing clear context and alternatives (implied regular fetch). It effectively guides the agent to choose this tool over ihyee_fetch for JavaScript-heavy content extraction scenarios.

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