Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_screenshotsC
  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 lists 'recent screenshots' but doesn't explain how 'recent' is determined (e.g., by timestamp, file system order), whether it's a read-only operation, what the output format looks like, or if there are any rate limits or permissions required. 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's function, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or fluff.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key behavioral aspects like how 'recent' is defined, the output structure, or error handling. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context to compensate, but it falls short.

  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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (directory, limit, pattern). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or typical use cases. However, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers 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 ('List') and resource ('recent screenshots from Windows directories'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_screenshot' (which likely retrieves a single screenshot) or 'list_directories' (which lists directories rather than files), but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

  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 'get_screenshot' or 'list_directories'. It mentions 'recent screenshots' but doesn't define what 'recent' means or specify any prerequisites or exclusions. Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose between this and its siblings.

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

• get_screenshotB
  3.1/5.0
  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 the tool can return either a path or base64-encoded content, which adds some context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if the path is invalid), performance characteristics, or security considerations, leaving significant gaps for a file retrieval tool.

  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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to clarifying the purpose.

  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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at behavior, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful for safe and effective use.

  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 input schema already fully documents both parameters (path and return_content). The description adds minimal value by hinting at the return options but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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: 'Get a specific screenshot file path or content' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('screenshot file'). It distinguishes from sibling tools list_directories and list_screenshots by focusing on retrieving a specific file rather than listing items. However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from siblings beyond the general action.

  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 prerequisites like needing a valid file path, when to use return_content, or how it relates to sibling tools like list_screenshots for finding available screenshots. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

• list_directoriesB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe return format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or whether this operation has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral 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 that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what the tool does but lacks important context about return format and behavioral characteristics. Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no complex schema), the description meets minimum viability but could be more complete about what 'list' actually returns.

  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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.

  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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all configured screenshot directories', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_screenshots', but the resource focus (directories vs screenshots) provides implicit 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 the sibling 'list_screenshots' tool, nor does it mention any prerequisites, context requirements, or alternative approaches. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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