Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• extractA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that both rendered text and screenshot are sent, enabling extraction of non-DOM numbers. However, it omits potential side effects like latency, cost, or limitations.

  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 well-structured and front-loaded, but the return type listing could be slightly more concise. Still efficient and easy to parse.

  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 complexity (4 params, output schema), the description covers purpose, parameters, and return shape. However, it does not address error handling or comparison with siblings, leaving some gaps.

  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?

  Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Args' section fully explains each parameter with examples and defaults, adding substantial value beyond the 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?

  Description clearly states 'Visit a URL → focused Sonnet structured extraction', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes by mentioning extraction of canvas/SVG content, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools 'act' and 'visit'.

  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 provides examples of what to extract (e.g., 'monthly LPG, MS, HSD consumption') and implies usage for focused extraction, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to siblings.

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

• visitA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses Chromium usage, rendering behavior, performance notes (e.g., screenshot adds ~200ms), and return structure. Minor gap: no mention of idempotency or side effects, but it's clear this is a read-only operation.

  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?

  Well-structured with a concise purpose statement, bullet-style parameter list, and return documentation. Slightly verbose in parameter descriptions but overall efficient and front-loaded.

  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?

  Covers all parameters, explains returns, and provides context for use relative to siblings. No mention of rate limits or concurrency, but given the output schema and detailed parameter docs, it is sufficiently complete for effective tool use.

  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?

  Despite 0% schema coverage, the description provides detailed explanations for all 7 parameters, including semantics, defaults, and usage examples (e.g., 'wait_for_selector: Optional CSS selector to await before reading the DOM'). Fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

  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 'Open a URL with a real Chromium and return its rendered state' and distinguishes from cheaper fetch tools, citing specific use cases like SPAs, JS-rendered charts, and login-walled pages.

  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?

  Explicitly says 'Use when the cheaper fetch tools fail' and lists alternative tools (web_fetch, pdf_fetch, http_post_form) with concrete scenarios, providing excellent when-to-use guidance.

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

• actA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool drives a real browser, performs steps, takes screenshots (logged, not returned), and returns step_results and final_url. It clearly states the behavioral traits beyond the schema, such as per-step navigation and extraction focus.

  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 long but well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, followed by when to use, step vocabulary, example, argument list, and return shape. While every section adds value, some verbosity could be trimmed (e.g., the example could be condensed). However, it is front-loaded with key information and highly readable.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but output schema exists), the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the return shape (same as extract plus step_results and final_url), covers all parameters, and provides detailed step semantics. No gaps remain for an AI agent to correctly invoke this tool.

  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%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: describing 'url' as starting page URL, 'steps' as ordered list of action dicts with full vocabulary and examples, 'focus' as extraction focus passed to Sonnet, 'timeout_ms' as per-step timeout, and 'full_page_screenshot' as whether final screenshot is full-page. The example illustrates parameter usage effectively.

  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 'Drive a real Chromium through a sequence of steps, then run Sonnet structured extraction on the final state.' It uses a specific verb ('drive', 'run extraction') and resource ('Chromium', 'pages'). It distinguishes from siblings by stating that 'visit' and 'extract' only read the page as loaded, whereas 'act' interacts first.

  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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use this when the data is BEHIND an interaction—a Year/Month dropdown that fires AJAX inline, a tab to click, a "Load more" button, a form to submit.' It contrasts with siblings: 'visit and extract only read the page as it loaded; act clicks/types/selects first.' It also provides an extensive step vocabulary and a concrete example.

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