Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• complete_sign_inA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the action is stateful, persists cookies in a local browser profile, and closes the login window. It does not mention reversibility or permission needs, but the main side effects are 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 tight sentences with the trigger condition front-loaded and no filler. Every clause adds useful behavioral or contextual information.

  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?

  The description explains when and what happens, but it omits the meaning of the only required parameter and any prerequisite about an active sign-in flow/window. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema contains a required 'name' property with 0% documentation coverage, and the description never explains what 'name' means or how to determine its value. The agent cannot confidently fill this sole required parameter.

  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 states a specific trigger condition ('after the user says they finished logging in') and concrete outcomes ('saves the session ... and closes the login window'). This clearly distinguishes complete_sign_in from siblings like sign_in (starting login) and revoke (ending sessions).

  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?

  It explicitly says when to call the tool: after the user announces they are done logging in. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the timing and flow relative to sign_in are clear enough.

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

• list_sessionsA
  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 disclosing behavior. 'List... sessions' implies a read-only operation, and 'whether a login window is open' adds useful behavioral context. But it does not explicitly confirm lack of side effects or describe any state changes, which matters given no annotation safety hints.

  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 starts with the verb 'List' and communicates the core behavior immediately. There is no filler or redundant information.

  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?

  A tool with zero parameters and an output schema does not need extensive description. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to use this vs. sibling tools, but the simple nature and existing output schema make the description sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

  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 parameter documentation is unnecessary. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed; the baseline of 4 applies.

  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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List saved website sessions' and adds a distinguishing detail, 'whether a login window is open.' It clearly differentiates this read-only listing tool from the action-oriented siblings like sign_in, revoke, and browse.

  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 its usage: use it to view saved sessions and login-window state. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings, mention prerequisites, or give context such as checking sessions before signing in.

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

• revokeA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It clearly states the destructive action (delete) and an important side effect: the local browser profile is also removed. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent a concrete understanding of consequences.

  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. Every word contributes: 'Delete' states the action, and 'named session and its local browser profile' states the exact scope.

  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 one-parameter destructive operation, the description covers the essential information: what is deleted and the side effect on the local profile. The presence of an output schema handles return-value expectations. It could mention irreversibility or how to obtain a valid name, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. The phrase 'a named session' makes clear that 'name' refers to the session identifier to be deleted, which is the essential semantic. A reference to list_sessions as a source of valid names would have made it more explicit, but the meaning is still unambiguous.

  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 'Delete' and names the exact resource: a named session and its local browser profile. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse, list_sessions, sign_in, and complete_sign_in, which serve different purposes.

  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 deleting/revoking a session, which is inferable from the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as sign_in or list_sessions, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an existing session.

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

• sign_inA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a real browser opens, the agent never sees the password, and a mandatory completion step is required. These are critical behavioral traits an agent would not otherwise know.

  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?

  Three short sentences, each earning its place. The main action is front-loaded, followed by necessary caveats about password privacy and the mandatory complete_sign_in step. No filler or redundancy.

  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 description covers the essential behavior, security boundary, session naming, and mandatory follow-up. It doesn't mention error cases or what the output represents, but an output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's responsibility.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains `name` as a durable session id with an example, but `url` is only indirectly implied by 'log into a website.' The description partially compensates but not fully for both parameters.

  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: it opens a real browser for the user to log into a website. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like browse and complete_sign_in by framing login as a user-driven interactive step.

  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 gives strong sequencing guidance: after login, the agent MUST call complete_sign_in before browsing. It also explains that `name` is a durable session id. It doesn't explicitly state when sign_in is preferred over browse, but the login-flow context makes this reasonably clear.

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

• browseA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently discloses the login-required failure mode and the recovery sequence, and it makes the default URL behavior explicit. It does not discuss potential side effects or error cases beyond LOGIN_REQUIRED, but 'Read a page' plus the retry protocol covers the most important behavioral context.

  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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. The login-required retry instruction is a useful protocol placed after the main usage rule, with no extraneous filler.

  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 description covers the main call pattern, URL reuse behavior, and the login-required retry flow, which is enough given the small parameter set and existing output schema. It could mention that valid session names come from list_sessions, but the sibling list and the phrase 'named session' make this reasonably inferable.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the url parameter by explaining that omitting it reuses the sign_in url, and it associates the required name parameter with a named session. It could more explicitly define name as a session identifier created by sign_in, but the meaning is recoverable from context.

  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: 'Read a page using a named session.' This clearly distinguishes browse from sibling tools like sign_in, complete_sign_in, revoke, and list_sessions, which are concerned with session lifecycle rather than content retrieval.

  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?

  The description gives explicit operational guidance: 'Omit url to reuse the sign_in url' and provides a concrete conditional workflow when the result is LOGIN_REQUIRED: 'call sign_in, wait, complete_sign_in, retry.' This tells the agent exactly when and how to react without leaving it to inference.

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