Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_screenshot_infoB
  3.1/5.0
  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 states the tool retrieves 'basic information' and 'dimensions', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific file permissions, handles errors (e.g., invalid paths), or has performance constraints. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its core function.

  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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key output ('dimensions (width and height in pixels)'). It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details, making it easy for an agent 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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, error handling, or output format (beyond mentioning dimensions), which could help the agent use it more effectively. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would improve 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, clearly documenting the single parameter 'screenshot_path' as an absolute path. The description adds no additional semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as supported file formats or path validation. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

  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 with specific verbs ('Get basic information') and resources ('screenshot image'), including what information is retrieved ('dimensions (width and height in pixels)'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_layout' and 'find_assets_in_screenshot' by focusing on basic metadata rather than layout analysis or asset detection, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

  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 its siblings ('analyze_layout', 'find_assets_in_screenshot'), such as for quick metadata checks versus detailed analysis. It implies usage for getting dimensions but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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

• analyze_layoutA
  3.6/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (analysis tasks) and the output format ('structured data for rebuilding the layout with semantic CSS'), but lacks details on performance characteristics (e.g., processing time, error handling), resource requirements, or limitations (e.g., supported image formats, size constraints). It does not contradict any annotations, as none are given.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists analysis steps in a single sentence, followed by the output use case. It avoids redundancy and each part adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the output mention with the analysis tasks.

  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 (layout analysis with multiple outputs) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the analysis tasks and output purpose but omits details on return structure, error conditions, or example outputs. Without an output schema, the agent must rely on the description's vague 'structured data' mention, which is insufficient for full understanding.

  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 input schema fully documents parameters ('screenshot_path', 'asset_paths', 'threshold'). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'threshold' affects layout detection or what formats 'asset_paths' should be in). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

  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 purpose with specific verbs ('analyze', 'finds', 'identifies', 'calculates', 'detects') and resources ('layout of assets in a screenshot'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'find_assets_in_screenshot' (which likely only locates assets) and 'get_screenshot_info' (which likely provides basic metadata). It explicitly lists the analysis outputs: finding all assets, identifying the center element, calculating relative positions, and detecting layout patterns.

  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 analyzing asset layouts in screenshots to generate semantic CSS data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_assets_in_screenshot' or 'get_screenshot_info'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's name and description alone.

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

• find_assets_in_screenshotA
  3.9/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It explains the method ('template matching') and output format, but lacks details on performance characteristics (e.g., speed, accuracy), error handling, or limitations (e.g., image format support, size constraints). It doesn't contradict annotations, but could be more comprehensive for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by method and output details, and ends with a usage context. All three sentences are essential and waste no words, making it highly 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, method, and usage context, but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., what happens if no assets are found) and output specifics beyond position data. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output documentation, it could be more thorough.

  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 parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'threshold' beyond the schema's 'Match confidence threshold'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 ('Find known image assets within a screenshot'), the method ('Uses template matching'), and the output ('return its position (x, y, width, height)'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'analyze_layout' and 'get_screenshot_info' by focusing on asset detection rather than layout analysis or metadata retrieval.

  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 for when to use this tool ('Useful for determining where specific images appear in a webpage screenshot'), which implies it's for image-based asset detection in screenshots. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, though the context helps differentiate from tools like 'analyze_layout'.

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