Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• extract_linksA
  3.5/5.0
  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, but it only mentions 'without displaying the full content'. Notably, it says 'all links' while the schema includes a maxLinks parameter defaulting to 50, creating a misleading implication. No details are given about error handling, return format, or any other behavioral traits.

  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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and includes a clarifying clause. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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?

  For a simple two-parameter tool with a complete schema, the description covers the core function but leaves gaps. The 'all links' phrasing conflicts with maxLinks, and there is no mention of return format or behaviors like redirect handling. It is minimally sufficient but not thorough, especially without annotations or an output schema.

  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 itself does not add meaning beyond the schema; in fact, it conflicts slightly with maxLinks by saying 'all links'. Since the schema already documents both url and maxLinks, the description adds no extra parameter value, so a 3 is appropriate.

  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 uses a specific verb 'extract' and clearly targets the resource 'all links from a webpage'. It also adds 'without displaying the full content', which differentiates it from sibling tools like terminal_browse. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct.

  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 context by noting 'without displaying the full content', suggesting this tool is for when only links are needed, not the full page. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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

• terminal_browseA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes 'without saving files' and the fallback to fetch+html-to-text, which explains error handling. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or side effects beyond these points.

  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: the first states the core purpose and key constraint, the second adds browser support/fallback. No wasted words; it's appropriately 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 the moderately complex schema (5 params, enums, defaults) and no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level overview. It could mention output formats or the extractLinks feature, but the schema covers those, so the description is adequate for informing tool selection.

  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 provides 100% coverage of all five parameters with clear descriptions, so the description adds no additional parameter-level detail. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the semantics effectively.

  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's function: browsing websites and displaying content directly in terminal, with a specific constraint (no file saving) and mention of multiple browser support. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (check_browsers, extract_links) by focusing on actual browsing/display.

  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 the primary use case (browsing a URL) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. It offers no guidance on selecting between this and check_browsers/extract_links, though the browser support detail hints at a selection mechanism.

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

• check_browsersA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of transparency. It clearly indicates a read-only check but does not explain how availability is determined, what browsers are checked, or the return format. There is no contradiction with annotations.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently.

  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 the absence of parameters and output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose. However, adding a note about what it returns (e.g., a list of available browsers) 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, which earns a baseline of 4. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details since none exist.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('terminal browsers available on the system'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like terminal_browse and extract_links. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

  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 verifying browser availability before invoking terminal_browse, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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