Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fetch_htmlC
  2.9/5.0
  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 mentions that content is 'unmodified' and returned 'as HTML', which is helpful, but lacks critical details like error handling, timeout behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it follows redirects. For a fetch operation with potential network issues, 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 front-loads the core functionality ('fetch a website') and specifies the output ('unmodified contents as HTML'). Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (network operation with 4 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address error cases, performance characteristics, or what happens with malformed HTML. For a fetch tool that could encounter various real-world issues, more context is needed.

  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 doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'max_length' interacts with HTML structure or whether 'headers' can override defaults). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('website'), and indicates the output format ('HTML'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'unmodified contents as HTML' rather than JSON, markdown, or text formats. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings beyond the output format.

  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 alternatives like fetch_json, fetch_markdown, or fetch_txt. It doesn't mention scenarios where HTML output is preferred over other formats, nor does it discuss any prerequisites or constraints for usage.

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

• fetch_jsonC
  2.9/5.0
  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 basic action but omits critical details such as error handling (e.g., for invalid URLs or non-JSON responses), authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it performs safe read operations. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral traits, which are essential for an agent to use the tool effectively in varied contexts.

  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 all four parameters (url, headers, max_length, start_index). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage notes, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenhanced parameter semantics.

  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 action ('Fetch') and resource ('a JSON file from a URL'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like fetch_html or fetch_markdown, which likely perform similar operations on different file types, so it misses full sibling distinction.

  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 alternatives like fetch_html or fetch_markdown. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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

• fetch_markdownC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches and converts content, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid URLs. For a web-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Fetch a website and return its contents converted content to Markdown.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (web fetching with conversion), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error cases, performance, or output format details. For a tool that interacts with external resources and transforms data, more context is needed.

  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 fully documents all four parameters (url, headers, max_length, start_index). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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: 'Fetch a website and return its contents converted content to Markdown.' It specifies the verb ('fetch'), resource ('website'), and transformation ('converted to Markdown'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fetch_html, fetch_json, and fetch_txt, which presumably return different formats.

  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 alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where Markdown output is preferred over HTML, JSON, or plain text. Usage is implied by the tool's name and purpose, but no explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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

• fetch_txtA
  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 the full burden. It mentions fetching and conversion but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid URLs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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 front-loads the core functionality with zero wasted words, making it easy to 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return values, error cases, or operational constraints. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps for a tool that interacts with external websites.

  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 fully documents all parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 ('fetch a website') and transformation ('convert the content to plain text (no HTML)'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch_html, fetch_json, and fetch_markdown which handle different output formats.

  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 implicitly suggests usage for extracting plain text from websites, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch_html for raw HTML or fetch_markdown for markdown conversion. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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