Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• screenshotB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Puppeteer implementation and multi-breakpoint feature, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, what gets returned (format, structure), performance characteristics, error conditions, or authentication requirements for accessing URLs. For a complex 12-parameter tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

  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 communicates the core functionality without waste. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the essential information about capturing screenshots with multiple viewport breakpoints using Puppeteer.

  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 complex 12-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., image data format, array structure for multiple breakpoints), error handling, performance implications, or authentication needs. The description provides basic purpose but lacks the contextual depth needed for effective agent usage.

  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 description coverage is 100%, providing comprehensive parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that breakpoints are viewport-based. It doesn't explain parameter interactions, dependencies, or provide additional context about how parameters like 'actions' or 'sessionId' affect the screenshot process.

  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 ('capture screenshots'), target resource ('web pages'), and method ('using Puppeteer') with the distinctive feature of 'multiple viewport breakpoints'. It provides a complete picture of what the tool does without needing to reference the name or title.

  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 web page screenshot capture with viewport testing, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or limitations. With no sibling tools mentioned, the lack of comparative guidance is less critical but still leaves usage context incomplete.

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