Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_reposB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the search is limited to public repositories and lists the return fields, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention rate limits, pagination, or any side effects. The 'public' qualifier and output hints provide some transparency, but the description is not fully explicit.

  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, informative sentence that front-loads the core purpose and mentions the return fields. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for a search tool.

  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 100% schema coverage and the description's mention of output fields, the tool is adequately documented for basic use. However, it lacks any mention of authentication needs, rate limits, or guidance on combining with siblings. The absence of an output schema means the description should clarify expected return structure more, but it does at least hint at the data returned.

  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 fully documents all five parameters. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema—only noting 'keyword/topic' for query, which is redundant with the schema's description. It does not explain parameter interactions or advanced syntax, so the baseline 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 searches public GitHub repositories by keyword/topic, which is a specific verb and resource. It also mentions what is returned (stars, last-updated, license). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_repo_details or suggest_stack, but their purposes are obviously distinct enough that a capable agent could infer the difference.

  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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of scenarios where search_repos is appropriate or where get_repo_details or suggest_stack should be used instead. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name and purpose alone.

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

• suggest_stackA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it runs 'several targeted GitHub searches' (including curated/awesome-list queries) and returns a ranked shortlist, which is the core behavior. However, it does not state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it mention potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or that multiple API calls may be made. For a search tool this is adequate but not rich.

  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, tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the input requirement ('Given a plain-language description...') and quickly explains the action and output. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

  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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return format. It states that it returns 'a ranked shortlist of existing projects/libraries,' which gives a general idea but does not specify the structure (e.g., whether it returns names, URLs, descriptions, or full repo objects). It also does not mention error conditions or rate limits. Given the relative simplicity of the tool and the presence of sibling tools, this is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.

  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% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the 'description' parameter (plain-language description of what you're about to build) which is also in the schema, so it is largely redundant. It does not add any extra meaning for 'language' or 'limit_per_query' beyond their schema descriptions. The description provides no additional parameter semantics.

  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 a specific verb (runs GitHub searches) and resource (existing projects/libraries to reuse), and it distinguishes itself from siblings: search_repos for general repo searching and get_repo_details for repo details. The tool's role as a 'suggest' tool that returns a ranked shortlist of reusable libraries is 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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you have a plain-language description of what you're building and want to find existing libraries to reuse. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'use search_repos for a direct repo search') or provide when-not-to-use guidance. This makes it clear but not fully explicit in routing the agent to the best sibling.

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

• get_repo_detailsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that it returns a README excerpt and top-level file list, which is informative. However, it does not mention any side effects (though likely read-only), error behavior, or other edge cases, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with zero annotation support.

  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?

  A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the action, parameters, output, and purpose. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundancy with the schema.

  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?

  For a simple one-parameter fetch tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently communicates what it does and why it would be used. It omits some specifics like return format details, but given the low complexity and clear intent, these are not critical gaps.

  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% for the single parameter 'repo', with a clear example. The description's 'owner/name' phrasing overlaps with the schema and adds no extra syntax or formatting details, so it does not go beyond the schema's documentation.

  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 a specific verb ('Fetch details') and resource ('one specific repo (owner/name)'), and clarifies it includes README excerpt and top-level file list, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It differentiates from siblings like search_repos by emphasizing 'one specific repo' rather than searching across many.

  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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you have a specific repo in mind and want to assess it for a use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the implicitness is strong given the single-repo focus versus search_repos.

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