Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_workflowsB
  3.3/5.0
  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 returns a list of workflows, which is basic output information, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks rich behavioral context.

  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 and well-structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose and basic behavior, and the second clarifies the optional parameter's effect. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted text, making it easy to understand quickly.

  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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter usage, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits, return format, and error handling. The description is complete enough for a simple search tool but could be more informative.

  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 parameter 'searchTerm' well-documented as an optional keyword. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that the search term is optional and providing examples ('e.g., 'scraping', 'automation', 'data extraction''), but it doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

  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: 'Search for available Autopilot Browser workflows by keyword.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('Autopilot Browser workflows'), and scope ('by keyword'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'run_workflow' beyond their 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 Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies when to use this tool through its purpose statement, and it provides guidance on the optional search term: 'If no search term is provided, returns all workflows.' However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'run_workflow' or any alternatives, and it doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• run_workflowA
  3.7/5.0
  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. While it mentions execution and inputs, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the execution entails (e.g., timeouts, side effects). For a tool that executes workflows with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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 and well-structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it efficient and easy to understand.

  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 of executing workflows with inputs, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., effects, errors) and output expectations. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps for a tool that performs execution.

  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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('workflowName' and 'workflowInputs') with their types and descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'provided inputs' but not elaborating on parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: 'Execute a specific Autopilot Browser workflow with the provided inputs.' It specifies the verb ('Execute') and resource ('Autopilot Browser workflow'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'search_workflows' beyond mentioning it in usage guidance. The purpose is clear but could be more distinct from the sibling tool.

  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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Use search_workflows first to find available workflows and their required inputs.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (after searching) and references the alternative sibling tool by name, offering a complete workflow for proper usage.

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