Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_downloaded_papersB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states it 'List[s] all locally downloaded papers' and mentions the return format, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires file system access, how it handles large collections, what metadata fields are included, or if there are any limitations on what 'locally downloaded' means.

  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 appropriately concise with two brief sentences that get straight to the point. The first sentence states the purpose, the second describes the return format. There's no unnecessary verbiage, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the return information more seamlessly.

  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 zero parameters, an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It states what the tool does and the return type, but doesn't explain important contextual details like what constitutes 'locally downloaded' (file paths? database records?), what metadata fields are included, or how this differs from sibling tools.

  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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters, though it could theoretically mention that no filtering options are available (which would be redundant with the empty schema).

  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 ('List') and resource ('locally downloaded papers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'get_paper' - it doesn't specify that this only shows already-downloaded content versus searching for new papers.

  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 that 'search' might be for finding new papers online, or that 'get_paper' might retrieve specific papers. There's no context about prerequisites or when this tool is appropriate.

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

• searchA
  3.5/5.0
  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. It mentions the tool returns a list of matching papers with specific fields, which is helpful, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it accesses live data versus cached results. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a search 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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 moderate complexity, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by the Returns section), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return values, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like performance or limitations, which would enhance completeness for a search operation.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'query' as a search query for title, keywords, or arXiv ID, and 'max_results' with its default value. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., arXiv ID syntax) or validation rules.

  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 arXiv papers by title, keywords, or arXiv ID, providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('arXiv papers'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_paper' (likely retrieves a specific paper) and 'list_downloaded_papers' (likely lists locally stored papers) by focusing on search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

  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 for searching arXiv papers, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_paper' or 'list_downloaded_papers'. It provides context on what can be searched (title, keywords, arXiv ID), but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparative scenarios.

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

• get_paperA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the basic behavior of retrieving text and specifies return values, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. It does not contradict annotations, as none exist.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by structured Arg and Return sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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 moderate complexity, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and returns, but could improve by adding behavioral context like error cases or usage guidelines relative to siblings.

  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 adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains 'paper_id' with an example format and 'section' with allowed values and default, compensating well for the schema's lack of documentation. However, it doesn't detail constraints like paper ID validation.

  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 verb 'Get' and resource 'full text of an arXiv paper', making the purpose specific and actionable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_downloaded_papers' (which lists) and 'search' (which searches) by focusing on retrieving specific paper content.

  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 when you need paper text, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search' for finding papers or 'list_downloaded_papers' for checking availability. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.

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