Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• lintA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks for problems and does not render, and notes that suggestions can be intentional. However, it does not describe the output format or error behavior.

  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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads key information. It efficiently lists specific issues, but could be slightly more 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 no output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of warnings, success/failure). It also does not fully explain how the 'partials' parameter works, leaving some gaps for the agent.

  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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by mentioning 'emailmd markdown' and partials splicing, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

  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 checks emailmd markdown for deliverability, accessibility, and readability problems, listing specific issues like missing alt text and http:// links. It distinguishes itself from siblings (render, read_docs) by focusing on linting without rendering.

  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 using the tool before sending to fix warnings, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to alternatives. The context of 'check without rendering' is useful.

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

• renderA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions warnings (non-fatal repairs) and previewUrl, which gives insight into side effects. It does not detail auth requirements, rate limits, or error handling, but the key behavioral traits are addressed.

  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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Render emailmd markdown into email-safe HTML') and then enumerates return fields. It is concise but could be more structured (e.g., separate sentences for purpose and outputs).

  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?

  Despite no output schema or annotations, the description lists all return fields and clarifies the nature of warnings. It lacks explicit error handling or failure modes, but for a render tool with 3 parameters, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

  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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is in the schema; it only describes return values. The parameter details (minify, markdown, partials) are already well-documented in the schema.

  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 renders 'emailmd' markdown into email-safe HTML, and lists the specific return fields (html, text, meta, warnings, htmlBytes, previewUrl). This verb+resource pair is distinct from sibling tools 'lint' and 'read_docs' which serve different purposes.

  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 use for converting markdown to email HTML, and sibling tools provide context for when not to use it (e.g., use 'lint' for validation, 'read_docs' for docs). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites.

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

• read_docsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations, but description fully conveys it's a read-only fetch operation with no side effects. Transparent about external call. Could mention error behavior but acceptable.

  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: first defines purpose, second adds usage details. No wasted words, front-loaded.

  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 one optional parameter and no output schema, description covers key behaviors. Lacks mention of response format, but not critical for a documentation tool.

  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 covers parameter description (100% coverage), and description adds practical examples ('buttons', 'frontmatter', 'theme', 'directives/hero') and context for usage.

  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 'Fetch emailmd documentation from emailmd.dev', specifying the verb (fetch), resource (documentation), and source. Distinct from sibling tools lint and render.

  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?

  Gives explicit usage: call with no arguments for index, pass page for specific page. Also advises reading relevant page before using uncertain syntax. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but sufficient.

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