Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_electron_window_infoB
  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. It discloses that the tool automatically detects apps with remote debugging on port 9222, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what specific information is returned (e.g., window titles, IDs, states). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial context about automatic detection. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient 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?

  Given the tool's complexity (detecting apps and retrieving window info), no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter with full schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the what and how (automatic detection on port 9222) but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. It's adequate as a starting point but has clear gaps for effective agent 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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents 'includeChildren' as a boolean to include child windows. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or implications of setting it true/false. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate with extra semantic value.

  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: 'Get information about running Electron applications and their windows.' It specifies the verb ('Get information') and resource ('running Electron applications and their windows'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like read_electron_logs or send_command_to_electron by focusing on window info rather than logs or commands. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from take_screenshot, which might also involve window info, 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 implies usage by stating it 'Automatically detects any Electron app with remote debugging enabled (port 9222),' which suggests when to use it (when such apps are running). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like read_electron_logs for logs or take_screenshot for visual data, and does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the debugging requirement.

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

• read_electron_logsB
  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 mentions the tool is for 'debugging and monitoring,' which suggests read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, requires permissions, has rate limits, or details the output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that directly address purpose and usage without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core function and efficiently adds context, making it easy to parse and 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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and hints at usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or output format. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would be beneficial, but it meets a basic threshold for 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all parameters ('follow', 'lines', 'logType'), including an enum for 'logType'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 when no param info is added in the description.

  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: 'Read console logs and output from running Electron applications.' It specifies the verb ('Read') and resource ('console logs and output from running Electron applications'), making the function evident. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., 'get_electron_window_info' or 'send_command_to_electron'), which would be needed for a score of 5.

  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 some usage context by stating it's 'Useful for debugging and monitoring app behavior,' which implies when to use it. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. 'get_electron_window_info' for window info or 'send_command_to_electron' for commands), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites, keeping it at an implied level.

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

• take_screenshotA
  4/5.0
  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. It discloses key behavioral traits: that it returns base64 image data, creates no files by default, and only creates files when outputPath is specified. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like what happens if no Electron windows are running, performance characteristics, or error conditions.

  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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: states the action and target, specifies the return format and purpose, and clarifies the file creation behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core functionality.

  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 screenshot tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and its behavior. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the return format structure or error handling, though the base64 return is mentioned.

  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 both parameters well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions that outputPath is optional and defaults to temp directory (already in schema) and implies windowTitle is optional (already in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 specific action ('Take a screenshot') and resource ('any running Electron application window'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_electron_window_info (which provides info) or send_command_to_electron (which sends commands). It explicitly mentions what the tool does and what it returns.

  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 provides clear context about when to use this tool (for capturing screenshots of Electron apps for AI analysis) and mentions the optional outputPath parameter for file creation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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

• send_command_to_electronA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing behavioral traits: it explains the enhanced UI interaction capabilities, emphasizes secure clicking ('Securely click'), safe navigation ('Safely navigate'), and enhanced error reporting for eval. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on command failure.

  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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, command listing, argument format explanation, examples, and usage guidance. While comprehensive, some redundancy exists (e.g., listing all commands could be more concise). Every sentence adds value, but it's slightly longer than optimal.

  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 tool's complexity (multiple command types, nested parameters) and no output schema, the description does well by explaining command behaviors, argument structures, and usage patterns. However, it doesn't describe return values or error responses, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. The coverage is strong but not fully complete for such a multifaceted tool.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the command types and their required argument structures with concrete examples. It clarifies that 'Arguments must be passed as an object with the correct properties' and provides specific mappings between commands and their parameter needs (e.g., click_by_selector requires selector, fill_input requires value).

  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 explicitly states 'Send JavaScript commands to any running Electron application via Chrome DevTools Protocol' - a specific verb ('Send') with clear resource ('JavaScript commands to Electron application'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_electron_window_info (info gathering), read_electron_logs (log reading), and take_screenshot (screenshot capture) by focusing on interactive command execution.

  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 guidance on when to use specific commands: 'Use get_page_structure or debug_elements first to understand available elements, then use specific interaction commands.' It also distinguishes between different command types (e.g., click_by_text vs click_by_selector) and provides clear examples for when to use each approach.

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