Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• preview_fileA
  3.6/5.0
  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 tool opens a file for preview and offers three methods, which implies non-destructive behavior. However, it does not mention potential errors, return values, or platform dependency beyond macOS.

  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 with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler.

  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?

  For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality (supported types, methods). It could be more complete by mentioning return behavior or error handling, but given the low complexity, it is adequate.

  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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds context about supported file types and method options, but these largely overlap with schema defaults. It does not introduce new meaning beyond the schema.

  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 function with a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('file for preview on macOS'), and lists supported file types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like capture_screen and get_browser_content, which are clearly different actions.

  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 previewing files and mentions supported types, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No reference to siblings is made.

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

• capture_screenA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It covers permission and target types, but omits details like output format (e.g., base64, file path), error handling, or what happens when invalid parameters are provided.

  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 deliver the core purpose and a critical prerequisite (permission). No redundant phrases, front-loaded with main action.

  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?

  No output schema exists, so description should explain return format. 'Return it as an image' is vague. Lacks details on output type (e.g., base64 string, file path) and potential side effects. Adequate for a simple screen capture but not fully complete.

  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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. Description adds value by summarizing target enum and noting scale default 0.5. However, the region parameter's coordinate system (units) is not explained, and nested object constraints are implicit.

  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 'Capture a screenshot of the macOS screen and return it as an image.' and lists three capture modes (full, region, frontmost), which distinctly separates it from sibling tools like get_browser_content or get_desktop_state.

  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?

  Mentions the required Screen Recording permission, which is a key prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the purpose is sufficiently distinct from siblings to infer appropriate contexts.

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

• get_browser_contentA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the read-only nature (getting information) and lists supported browsers. It does not mention error handling or potential permissions, but for a non-destructive retrieval, the description is reasonably transparent.

  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 with no extraneous words. It front-loads the purpose and key details, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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?

  For a simple, two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, supported browsers, and differentiation from a sibling. It does not detail the return structure or error cases, but the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about what is returned (active tab title and URL per window, optionally all tabs) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which already include defaults and enum values.

  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 retrieves detailed browser information (active tab title and URL for each window, optionally all tabs). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool get_desktop_state, making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 advises using this tool when comprehensive browser state is needed beyond get_desktop_state, providing context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or what get_desktop_state specifically covers, which could be clearer.

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

• get_desktop_stateA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description implies a read-only operation by listing retrieved data, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or destructive potential. With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits (e.g., 'read-only, no modification of state'), which is missing.

  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, efficiently listing the data points and usage hint without any fluff. Every word adds value, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 no parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description is fairly complete: it tells what the tool retrieves and when to use it. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., macOS accessibility permissions) or the format of the returned data, which would improve completeness.

  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?

  The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but with no parameters, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate. There is no additional information needed beyond what the schema already conveys.

  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 action (get), the resource (macOS desktop context), and lists specific elements (frontmost app, visible apps, Chrome tabs, window positions, screen resolution). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like capture_screen, get_browser_content, and preview_file by focusing on overall desktop state rather than capturing or extracting specific content.

  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 advises using this tool for a 'quick overview of what the user is looking at,' providing a clear context of use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings, which would be helpful for an AI agent deciding between tools.

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