Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• htmldrop_listA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint safely. The description adds valuable context by specifying the 'authenticated tenant' scope and the returned fields (slug, id, public URL), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

  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, front-loaded sentence communicates the purpose and return values without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no inputs.

  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 simplicity, no parameters, and an existing output schema likely listing the response structure, the description is sufficient. It covers the key behavioral aspect (listing every published site) and indicates the return fields, though it could mention pagination or rate limits if applicable.

  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 baseline is 4. The description correctly does not need to explain any parameters, and the schema provides full coverage with an empty definition.

  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 with a specific verb ('List'), resource ('site'), and scope ('every site the authenticated tenant has published'). It naturally differentiates from sibling tools htmldrop_publish and htmldrop_delete, which perform write operations.

  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 when to use the tool (to view published sites) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced, so the agent must infer that this is the read-only counterpart.

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

• htmldrop_publishA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent operation. The description adds that it creates a hosted page and returns a share URL, but these are largely implied by the annotations and the operation type. No additional behavioral traits like auth requirements or rate limits are mentioned. No contradiction exists.

  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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary action and result, the second gives usage trigger and the key parameter constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  With a fully documented input schema, an output schema present, and annotations covering mutation, external side effects, and non-idempotency, the description needs only to clarify usage and the exclusive parameter choice. It does both effectively, making the tool's invocation well-specified for an agent.

  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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds the valuable cross-parameter constraint: 'Pass exactly one of html or markdown.' This clarifies mutual exclusivity, which is not fully explicit in the schema (each property only states 'Either this or markdown must be set'). Thus, the description meaningfully supplements 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Publish an HTML or Markdown document as a hosted page on htmldrop.' It specifies the resource, the action, and the outcome ('Returns the public share URL'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools (list/delete).

  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?

  Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this whenever a user asks to publish, share, or put on the web some HTML / Markdown content.' This offers clear context and trigger phrases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it's a 4 rather than a 5.

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

• htmldrop_deleteA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a destructive, repeatable operation. The description adds a concrete behavioral detail: 'Once deleted the public URL returns 404 immediately,' which informs the agent of the immediate, observable effect. This goes beyond the annotation metadata without contradicting it.

  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 long, with the primary action stated first and the clarifying detail second. Every word adds value: the id-source clarification prevents misuse, and the 404 note sets expectations. No fluff or repetition.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool is simple (one parameter), has annotations covering safety (destructive/idempotent) and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the only ambiguity (which id to use) and adds the immediate 404 behavior. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

  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 schema covers the single parameter completely (100% coverage), giving the baseline of 3. The description enhances this by explaining that the id is an 'opaque string' and explicitly warning against using the slug, which is not present in the schema's description. This added semantic distinction justifies a score above the baseline.

  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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Delete a site by its id.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like htmldrop_list (which lists sites) and htmldrop_publish (which publishes). It further clarifies that the id is an opaque string from htmldrop_list, not the slug, removing ambiguity about the resource identifier.

  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: when you need to delete a site. It also gives practical guidance on which id to pass (the opaque string from htmldrop_list, not the slug). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the action is unambiguous and the id-source clarification is a strong usage cue.

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