Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• web_fetchC
  2.9/5.0
  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 Chrome browser automation and returning main content text with optional links, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling for inaccessible pages, or what 'readable text' entails (e.g., stripping HTML, handling dynamic content). The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with external webpages.

  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 and well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by a bullet point. Every sentence earns its place by stating the core purpose and a key feature. However, the bullet point format is slightly redundant with the main sentence, and it could be more front-loaded by integrating the optional links feature into the initial statement.

  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 scraping (external interactions, potential failures) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values beyond 'main content text and optionally links', leaving the agent uncertain about output structure, error responses, or behavioral constraints like timeouts or permissions. For a tool with no structured safety hints, this is inadequate.

  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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'optionally links' which aligns with the 'includeLinks' parameter but doesn't provide additional semantic context. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly 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 tool's purpose: 'Extract readable text content from a webpage using Chrome browser automation.' It specifies the verb (extract), resource (text content from a webpage), and method (Chrome browser automation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'web-search' tool, which likely searches rather than extracts content from a specific URL.

  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 mentions 'optionally links' as a feature but doesn't clarify scenarios where including links is beneficial or when to choose this over 'web-search'. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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

• web-searchA
  3.5/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context beyond basic functionality: it mentions pagination ('each page has ~10 results') and optional filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., result format), which are significant gaps for a search tool.

  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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first clause and adds key details in a second sentence. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient for quick understanding.

  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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic operation and filtering options but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with the sibling tool. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would be beneficial for full completeness.

  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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at the optional nature of site and timeframe filters, but it doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage examples. This meets the baseline for 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 webpages and get a specific page of results.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('webpages'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'web_fetch' by implying this is for search results rather than fetching specific pages. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling, keeping it from a perfect score.

  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 provides implied usage context by mentioning optional filters ('Optionally filter by site and timeframe'), which suggests when to use these parameters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling 'web_fetch' or any other alternatives, and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, 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.