Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_docsA
  3.6/5.0
  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 that the tool searches 'latest docs' and returns 'summarized text with source links,' which adds some behavioral context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination, leaving gaps in transparency for a search operation.

  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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by supported libraries, then clearly labeled 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

  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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases, rate limits, or authentication, and the output is only vaguely described ('summarized text with source links'). For a search tool with two parameters, this is adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly defines both parameters in the 'Args' section: 'query' as 'The query to search for' with an example, and 'library' as 'The library to search in' with an example and list of supported values. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't fully detail constraints like library validation or query formatting.

  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: 'Search the latest docs for a given query and library.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('docs'), and scope ('latest docs for a given query and library'), with examples of supported libraries. However, without sibling tools, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

  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?

  The description implies usage by listing supported libraries (langchain, openai, llama-index, uv) and providing examples, suggesting it should be used for searching documentation within these specific libraries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other search methods or tools), and there are no sibling tools to compare against, so the guidance is only implied.

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