Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_generated_codeB
  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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning read-only nature, return format, error handling, or side effects.

  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?

  A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant words.

  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 getter with one parameter, the description gives the essential purpose but lacks details about return structure or usage context, which is needed since no output schema or annotations exist.

  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% and the parameter description is clear. The tool description adds no further semantic meaning but aligns with the schema.

  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 the specific verb 'get' and identifies the resource as 'generated code blocks' with the source 'test file', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on test state or execution.

  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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling names suggest a test workflow but the description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or exclusion conditions.

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

• finalize_testB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full load. It discloses the core mutation (removing connect() call and markers) but does not explain consequences like file modification, reversibility, or side effects. This partial transparency earns a middle score.

  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 direct and front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no fluff or redundant repetition of schema details.

  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?

  With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns, any prerequisites, or potential impacts. It only describes the action and omits post-invocation expectations, leaving the agent uncertain about the outcome. This is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

  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 covers both parameters with clear descriptions, so the schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond referencing marker cleanup, which is already in the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the action (finalize) and the specific operations (removing connect() call and optionally cleaning up markers). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like execute_test_step and get_current_test_state by using the verb 'finalize' and specifying a concrete transformation.

  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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any workflow context or exclusions. It implies finalization as an end step but lacks any comparison to sibling tools or prerequirements.

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

• list_active_testsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 clearly indicates a read-only listing operation ('List all currently connected test processes'), but it does not disclose return format, behavior when no processes are connected, or any potential side effects. It is adequate but 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place and is highly concise.

  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 output schema, the description should explain what the returned data looks like; it only says 'list' without specifying format or content. Also lacks usage guidance. For a simple listing tool it is acceptable but has identifiable gaps.

  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, so the schema is fully descriptive by default. The description correctly avoids adding unnecessary parameter information. The baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

  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 and resource: 'List all currently connected test processes'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_current_test_state, finalize_test, execute_test_step, and get_generated_code, which perform different actions.

  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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where it is preferred. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.

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

• get_current_test_stateA
  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 full burden. It provides useful detail on what the response includes (DOM, snapshot, console logs, availableContext), giving a sense of the tool's behavior. However, it does not mention error conditions, prerequisites beyond 'connected test', or whether the operation is read-only, leaving gaps in transparency.

  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 extremely concise: two sentences with no unnecessary wording. The first sentence clearly states the function and what it returns; the second highlights the critical availableContext field and its tie-in to execute_test_step.

  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 an output schema and annotations, the description does a good job covering the tool's purpose and key return fields. It explains the availableContext integration, which is important for using the tool effectively. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and exact response structure, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's moderate complexity.

  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 already provides 100% description coverage for both optional parameters (testFile, testName), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, but that is acceptable given the schema already explains them.

  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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current state of a connected test.' It enumerates the included contents (DOM, snapshot, console logs, availableContext APIs), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_active_tests or execute_test_step.

  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 use case by noting the availableContext field is usable in execute_test_step, suggesting this tool is meant for inspecting state before executing steps. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving usage guidance somewhat implicit.

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

• execute_test_stepA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return values (updated DOM state and console logs) and the dependency on availableContext, but it does not mention potential side effects of executing arbitrary code, error handling, or whether the tool requires specific permissions. This is moderate transparency for an execution 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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core action and outputs; the second sentence delivers a critical usage caution. No redundancy or filler, and the most important operational detail (checking availableContext) is 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?

  For a code execution tool with no output schema, the description summarizes key outputs (DOM state, console logs) and the essential prerequisite. It lacks detailed return formatting or failure behavior, but the provided context is sufficient for a competent agent to begin using the tool effectively.

  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 provides 100% coverage, describing the code parameter and its dependency on availableContext, plus optional testFile and testName. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reiterating the availableContext requirement. Baseline 3 applies because 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 tool's function: 'Execute code directly in the connected test client and get back the updated DOM state and console logs.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from siblings like get_current_test_state (which retrieves state) and finalize_test (which likely closes or completes a test).

  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 an explicit usage prerequisite: 'Before using this tool, call get_current_test_state first to check the availableContext field.' It gives clear context on when to use the tool and what to do first, though it does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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