Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• webfetchB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses LLM processing and default summarization behavior when prompt is omitted. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: timeout policies, redirect handling, content size limits, or error responses.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Front-loaded with clear action sentence followed by structured Args section. No redundant text, though the Args format is slightly technical/docstring-like rather than conversational.

  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 output schema exists, the description appropriately omits return value details. Parameter documentation is complete, but for a web-fetching tool, the absence of error handling, retry logic, or content type constraints leaves 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?

  Schema has 0% description coverage (only titles). The Args section compensates by documenting both 'url' and 'prompt', including the optional status and default summary behavior of the prompt parameter. Provides sufficient semantic meaning absent from schema.

  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?

  States specific actions (fetch, extract, process) and resource (URL). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'web_search' (which queries multiple sources) by emphasizing 'single URL' and LLM processing.

  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?

  Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'web_search' or 'image_description'. No mention of prerequisites like valid URL formats or rate limit considerations.

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

• web_searchA
  3.7/5.0
  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 successfully discloses the key behavioral trait that results are processed/synthesized by an LLM rather than returned raw. However, it omits rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling behavior, and whether the LLM synthesis incurs additional latency or costs.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by an 'Args' section documenting parameters. While the 'Args:' format is slightly informal, every sentence earns its place and the structure is scannable for an LLM agent.

  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 has an output schema (not shown), the description appropriately avoids explaining return values. It covers the search engine specificity (SearXNG), the synthesis behavior, and parameter semantics necessary for invocation, though it could benefit from mentioning error scenarios or domain format requirements.

  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%, requiring the description to compensate entirely. It documents all 4 parameters (query, max_results, allowed_domains, blocked_domains) with clear semantic meaning. However, it states max_results has a 'default: 10' which contradicts the schema's 'default: null', creating a potentially costly ambiguity for the agent.

  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 'Search[es] the web using SearXNG, fetch[es] top result pages, and synthesize[s] with LLM.' This distinguishes it from sibling 'webfetch' (likely raw fetching) by specifying the SearXNG engine and the LLM synthesis step, providing specific verbs and resource scope.

  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?

  While there is no explicit comparison to siblings, the phrase 'synthesize with LLM' implies usage context—use this when synthesized search results are needed versus raw page fetching. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use vs webfetch' guidance or prerequisites.

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

• image_descriptionA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses underlying technology (vision language model) and output format structure (JSON with description, success status, error info). Lacks details on image size limits or failure modes.

  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?

  Uses structured docstring format with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides essential information about inputs, outputs, or behavior. No redundant text.

  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?

  Appropriate for a single-parameter tool. Covers the input parameter fully and summarizes output schema. Could benefit from noting error conditions or image format restrictions, but sufficient for invocation.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). Description fully compensates by specifying acceptable formats: 'base64-encoded string' or 'absolute filesystem path', adding critical semantic meaning beyond the bare 'string' type.

  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?

  States specific action ('Describe'), resource ('image'), and implementation method ('vision language model'). Clearly distinguishes from web-search siblings by domain (images vs. web content).

  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?

  No explicit when-to-use versus siblings or alternatives, but usage is implied by the Args section specifying image input requirements (base64 or path). Falls into 'implied usage' category.

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