Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• delete_baselineA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that deletion happens, but does not mention whether the deletion is permanent, what happens if the baseline does not exist, or any side effects on associated comparisons. The word 'Delete' implies mutability, but the lack of detail about consequences 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 two sentences long, with the action front-loaded in the first sentence and a brief usage context in the second. Every word contributes to clarity without redundancy or fluff.

  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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and absence of annotations, the description conveys purpose and usage but omits important behavioral aspects like permanence or error handling. It is adequate for understanding when to call the tool but not fully complete for anticipating consequences.

  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 already provides 100% description coverage for the only parameter 'name' as 'Baseline identifier to delete'. The description merely repeats 'by name' without adding format details, constraints, or examples, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond 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 'Delete a saved baseline by name', specifying the verb, resource, and method of identification. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like capture_baseline, compare_visual, and list_baselines, which perform different operations.

  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 a specific condition: 'Use when a page has intentionally changed and the old baseline is obsolete.' This gives clear context for when deletion is appropriate, although it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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

• compare_visualA
  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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool captures a URL, compares against a saved baseline, and returns diff statistics and a diff image. However, it does not explicitly address side effects (e.g., whether a new screenshot is stored), permissions, or failure behaviors, leaving some ambiguity.

  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, front-loaded with an action verb and resource. Each sentence adds value: the first defines functionality and return content, the second explains the rationale and emphasizes the AI's role. No fluff or repetition.

  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?

  The tool has moderate complexity with four parameters and no output schema. The description compensates by clearly stating return values (diff stats and diff image) and the intended use case (visual judgment of regressions). It lacks edge-case details like missing baselines or error handling, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

  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 with descriptions for all parameters, so the bar is at baseline 3. The description does mention the diff image and false positives, which loosely relates to includeDiffImage, but it does not add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states.

  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 and resource: 'Capture the current state of a URL and compare it pixel-by-pixel against a saved baseline.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like capture_baseline and list_baselines by focusing on comparison rather than creation or listing.

  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 explains the tool's role in detecting regressions and acknowledges that pixel diff alone yields false positives, implying when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to select it over siblings.

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

• list_baselinesA
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only listing operation and reveals what the return will contain (URLs and capture settings), but it does not mention side effects, ordering, pagination, or any access requirements.

  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 redundant or vague phrasing. Every word contributes to the reader's understanding of what the tool does.

  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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the content of the list. It could be slightly richer with contextual cues about when to use it relative to siblings, but it is complete enough for the simple operation it describes.

  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, and the empty input schema is fully covered. There is nothing meaningful to add semantically, and per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4.

  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 lists all saved visual baselines and includes URLs and capture settings. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like capture_baseline, compare_visual, and delete_baseline.

  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 use case of listing existing baselines is implied by the verb 'list', but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no direct guidance beyond the clear purpose.

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

• capture_baselineA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior: captures a screenshot and saves it as a baseline. It also adds valuable context about using a known-good version. Minor gaps remain (e.g., overwrite behavior, storage location), but the primary side effect is clearly stated.

  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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no redundant content. Every phrase earns its place: action, purpose, usage context, and relation to sibling.

  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?

  For a capture tool with rich schema annotations and no output schema, the description covers the workflow comprehensively. It explains what the tool does, when to run it, and how to use the result. The sibling context and schema fill in remaining details.

  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 eight parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond naming 'name' as the baseline identifier, which is also 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 uses a specific verb 'capture' and resource 'screenshot of a URL', clearly states it saves as a visual baseline under a given name. This distinguishes it from siblings like compare_visual, list_baselines, and delete_baseline.

  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?

  Provides explicit guidance: 'Run this once on a known-good version of the page' and directs to use compare_visual later, which differentiates from alternatives. This is clear when-to-use and points to relevant sibling.

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