Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• interactC
  2.6/5.0
  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 mentions 'simple interactions' but doesn't specify what happens (e.g., page changes, errors, side effects), whether it's read-only or mutative, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that performs actions on a page.

  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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and clear in its brevity, though it could benefit from more detail to improve other dimensions. The structure is straightforward and easy to parse.

  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 performing interactions on a page (likely involving mutations), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, return values, or usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how actions like 'click', 'fill', or 'select' work in context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool 'Perform simple interactions on a page', which provides a basic verb+resource combination but lacks specificity. It doesn't clarify what types of interactions beyond the generic term 'simple', nor does it distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'extract' or 'browse'. The purpose is understandable but vague.

  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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a browserId and pageId from a previous browse operation), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'extract' or 'close'. Usage is implied through parameter names but not explicitly stated.

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

• closeC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool closes a browser to free resources, implying a destructive action that terminates a session, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's reversible, requires specific permissions, affects other tools, or has side effects (e.g., losing unsaved data). The mention of 'free resources' adds some context but is minimal.

  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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the key action and purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

  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 annotations, no output schema, and a destructive action implied by 'close', the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what happens after closing (e.g., return values, error conditions), prerequisites, or integration with sibling tools. For a tool that likely terminates a resource, more context is needed.

  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 the parameter 'browserId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain what a 'browserId' is, how to obtain it, or its format. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 ('Close') and the resource ('browser'), specifying it's to 'free resources'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'browse' (open/access) and 'interact' (use while open), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'extract' (which might operate on a closed or open browser).

  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 implies usage when resources need freeing, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., whether to close after 'browse' or 'extract'), prerequisites, or exclusions. It lacks context for decision-making relative to siblings.

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

• extractC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether extraction is read-only (implied but not stated), if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., invalid IDs). The description only states what it does, not how it behaves.

  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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('extract information') and specifies key details (source: current page; formats: text, html, screenshot). Every element earns its place.

  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?

  For a tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the relationship to 'browse' (source of browserId/pageId), what 'extract' returns (e.g., raw text, file path), or error handling. The agent lacks context for effective 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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the 'type' enum options (text, html, screenshot), but doesn't explain semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., what 'text' extraction includes vs. 'html'). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 verb 'extract' and the resource 'information from the current page', specifying the output formats (text, html, or screenshot). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'browse' (which likely navigates) and 'interact' (which likely performs actions), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'close' (which likely terminates a session).

  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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a browser/page ID from 'browse'), exclusions, or contextual cues for choosing between extraction types. The agent must infer usage from parameter names alone.

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

• browseB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions the return values (page title and visible text) but lacks critical details such as error handling (e.g., for invalid URLs), performance implications (e.g., timeouts), authentication needs, or rate limits, which are important for a browsing 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and outcome with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and gets straight to the point.

  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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return values but lacks details on behavioral traits and usage guidelines, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's effective 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters (url, headless, waitFor) thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage nuances, but this is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

  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 ('browse to a URL') and the outcome ('return the page title and visible text'), using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'close', 'extract', and 'interact' by focusing on navigation and content retrieval rather than closing, extraction, or interaction.

  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 like 'extract' or 'interact', nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage. It states what the tool does but not when it's appropriate.

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