Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fetch_multiple_urlsC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention concurrency limits, error handling per URL, response format, or any side effects. The tool's behavior is almost entirely opaque.

  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 a single efficient sentence. While it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections), it is appropriately concise for its straightforward purpose.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a batch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description severely lacks necessary details such as return format, error handling, rate limits, and ordering of results. The agent would find it incomplete.

  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 both parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline of 3.

  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 '批量获取多个URL的网页内容' clearly states the verb (batch fetch) and resource (web content of multiple URLs). It immediately distinguishes itself from single-URL sibling tools like fetch_url and its variants.

  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?

  No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus single-URL alternatives, nor does it explain the preferJina option or scenarios for each backend. The agent must infer from sibling names.

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

• fetch_url_with_jinaB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided. Description only mentions 'forcibly use Jina Reader' but does not disclose if it's read-only, error behavior, or output format. For a content fetching tool, this is insufficient.

  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?

  Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with action. However, it could be slightly more structured with explicit statements.

  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?

  No output schema, so description should explain return values. It does not. Also lacks info on rate limits or prerequisites. Incomplete for a tool with one required parameter.

  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?

  Only one parameter 'url' with schema description. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

  Description clearly states it uses Jina Reader to fetch webpage content and targets complex webpages, distinguishing it from siblings like fetch_url which may use other methods. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from fetch_url_with_browser.

  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?

  Gives usage context: '适用于复杂网页' (suitable for complex webpages), implying when to use this tool. But lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative names, leaving room for ambiguity.

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

• fetch_url_localA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden. It discloses the forced use of a local parser and suitability for simple pages, implying limitations for complex content. But it omits details on read-only behavior, error handling, or performance implications.

  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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and usage context without waste.

  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 simplicity (single parameter) and rich sibling context, the description adequately orients an agent. However, it lacks details about return format or error states, which might be needed for full completeness.

  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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter name and the schema's description, merely restating 'URL of the web page to fetch content'.

  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 fetches web page content using a local parser, with explicit conditions for use (simple pages or when Jina is unavailable). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which use different backends.

  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 tells when to use this tool (simple pages or Jina unavailable), contrasting with fetch_url_with_jina. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or provide a detailed when-not-to-use guide.

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

• fetch_url_with_browserA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description reveals it uses a browser (Playwright) which implies resource-intensive behavior and ability to handle JavaScript. However, it does not disclose potential downsides like slower performance or memory usage.

  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 clearly communicates the tool's purpose and usage context with no wasted words.

  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 simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It could mention return format or error cases, but overall it sufficiently informs agent decision-making.

  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 only parameter (url) has schema description coverage of 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 it uses Playwright browser to fetch web content, specifically for restricted sites like those with Cloudflare or CAPTCHA. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that likely use simpler methods.

  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?

  It explicitly says '适用于有访问限制的网站' (suitable for access-restricted sites) and gives examples, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the guidance is strong.

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

• fetch_urlA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description should carry the full burden. It discloses the conversion to Markdown and fallback mechanism, but lacks details on timeouts, error handling, or permission needs.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose. No extraneous information.

  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 no output schema, the description mentions Markdown conversion as output. It covers the primary workflow and fallback. Could be more precise about the return format but is adequate for the complexity.

  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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds behavioral context for the 'preferJina' parameter by explaining the fallback logic, which is not in the schema. This enhances understanding.

  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 fetches web content and converts to Markdown. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the default Jina Reader with local fallback strategy.

  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 explains the default behavior and fallback, implying general use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like fetch_url_with_jina or fetch_url_local.

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