Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• 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 states 'saves content' (implying a write operation) and mentions a 'safe filename', but doesn't clarify permissions, error handling, or what 'safe' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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 action and destination. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and location but lacks details on behavior and parameters, making it incomplete for a mutation tool with undocumented inputs.

  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. It mentions 'safe filename' and '/drafts folder', which adds some context for the 'filename' parameter, but doesn't explain 'content' or provide details on filename safety rules. This partial compensation is insufficient for the 2 undocumented parameters.

  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 ('Saves content') and target ('to the /drafts folder'), with the verb 'saves' being specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'scrape_article' (which appears unrelated), so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

  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 mentions saving to '/drafts folder' but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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

• 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. It states the tool scrapes clean content and focuses on the main article body, which hints at behavior like content cleaning and body extraction. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'clean' entails, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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 action and focus. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 has an output schema (which covers return values), no annotations, and a simple input schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the tool's focus on article body content, but for a scraping tool with no behavioral annotations, it could benefit from more context on limitations or expected output format.

  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 description does not mention the 'url' parameter explicitly, but with only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, it compensates by implying the parameter's purpose through context ('from a URL'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format or constraints, keeping it from a perfect score.

  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 ('scrapes') and resource ('clean content from a URL'), specifying it focuses on the main article body. This distinguishes it from generic scraping tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'save_draft' tool, which appears unrelated.

  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, such as other scraping methods or tools. It mentions focusing on the main article body, which implies a context for article content extraction, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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