Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• audit_htmlA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a sandbox page is created to analyze the markup, which is useful context, but does not disclose whether the HTML is sent externally, how the sandbox is handled, or any security implications. This is moderate transparency but leaves notable 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 only two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and adds the key behavioral detail in the second sentence. Exemplary conciseness.

  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?

  This is a complex tool with 7 parameters (6 required) and no output schema. The description does not explain any of the required parameters, the meaning of 'sitelint', the expected input format for html, or the structure of audit results. Given the complexity, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional exploration.

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

  Parameters2/5

  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 for the 7 parameters, but it only hints at the standards parameter ('WCAG/SEO') and says nothing about auditTypes, wcagLevels, wcagVersions, wcagCriteria, or waitUntil. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional meaning or examples.

  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 audits raw HTML snippets against WCAG/SEO standards, using a sandbox page. This distinguishes it from sibling tools: audit_url presumably audits URLs, and check_wcag_criterion checks specific criteria. The verb 'audit' and resource 'raw HTML snippet' are specific and unambiguous.

  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 phrase 'raw HTML snippet' provides clear context: use this when you have markup to audit rather than a URL. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

• check_wcag_criterionA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool filters an audit, returns pass/fail per element, and is faster than a full audit. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or prerequisites, which are useful for a tool with no annotation safety net.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a valuable output hint ('Returns pass/fail per element'). Every phrase contributes without redundancy.

  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?

  With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a basic return format and scope but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., invalid URLs, missing criteria, accessibility limitations). It is adequate for a simple check tool but not comprehensive.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'criterion, level, and WCAG standard,' but 'WCAG standard' does not correspond to any schema property (only url, level, criterion). The description does not clearly map parameters to schema fields, leaving ambiguity for an 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 action ('Check a single WCAG success criterion against a page') and differentiates from siblings by noting it 'filters audit to one criterion, level, and WCAG standard — faster than full audit.' This makes the tool's specific role unambiguous.

  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 implies when to use this tool — for targeted, faster checks — and contrasts it with a full audit. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state exclusions, but the context and wording ('faster than full audit') provide clear usage guidance.

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

• audit_urlA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 discloses the audit scope and available filters but does not mention network behavior, waitUntil handling, or result format. There is no annotation contradiction.

  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 sentences, no filler, with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every clause adds value: scope, categories, and filtering capability.

  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?

  The description is adequate for tool selection, covering purpose and key filters. But with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, missing details like waitUntil behavior and return value shape leave notable gaps for an agent invoking it correctly.

  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 helps by mapping filter categories (standard, audit type, WCAG level, version, criteria) to parameters. However, it omits waitUntil semantics and does not fully explain each parameter's formatting beyond schema enums.

  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 the specific action ('Run a SiteLint audit on a live URL') and names the audit categories (accessibility, SEO, performance, security). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings audit_html (HTML input) and check_wcag_criterion (single criterion).

  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 'live URL' scoping provides clear context for when to use this tool vs audit_html, and the optional filter list gives usage flexibility. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not to use, but the context is strong enough.

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