Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• xpathC
  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 action ('Select query') but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., nodes, values, errors), performance characteristics, or any constraints like input size limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

  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: 'Select query XML content using XPath'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool. Every word earns its place.

  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 tool's complexity (XML querying with XPath), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., extracted data, error handling), which is critical for an agent to use it correctly. The description should compensate for the lack of structured output information but fails to do so.

  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 schema already documents all parameters (xml, query, mimeType) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage notes for parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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: 'Select query XML content using XPath'. It specifies the verb ('Select query') and resource ('XML content'), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from its sibling 'xpathwithurl', which likely handles URLs instead of direct XML input. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

  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 the sibling 'xpathwithurl' or any other tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied from the purpose but lacks explicit context or alternatives.

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

• xpathwithurlC
  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 mentions fetching content and querying with XPath, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits such as error handling, network timeouts, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens with invalid URLs or queries. For a tool that performs network operations and data processing, this is a significant gap.

  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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence: 'Fetch content from a URL and select query it using XPath'. Every word contributes directly to explaining the tool's purpose, with no unnecessary information or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core functionality.

  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 tool's complexity (network fetching and XPath querying), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., query results, errors), behavioral aspects like performance or limitations, or how to interpret results. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

  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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (url, query, mimeType) with their purposes and types. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it only implies the parameters indirectly ('Fetch content from a URL' hints at 'url', 'select query it using XPath' hints at 'query'). It doesn't provide additional context like examples or constraints, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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: 'Fetch content from a URL and select query it using XPath'. It specifies the verb ('fetch', 'select query'), resource ('content from a URL'), and method ('using XPath'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'xpath', which might have overlapping functionality.

  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 the sibling tool 'xpath' or any other tools, nor does it specify scenarios where this tool is preferred or should be avoided. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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