Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• betterpromptB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It describes the transformation and strategies but does not mention safety, side effects, or whether the tool is read-only. It lacks disclosure of important behavioral aspects like output details or limitations.

  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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second paragraph lists techniques efficiently without redundancy. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the structure is clear.

  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 complexity (14 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the purpose and techniques but does not detail how parameters interact or what the output format is. It states the output is an 'optimized prompt', which is adequate but could be more specific.

  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?

  All 14 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the tool description adds limited value beyond the schema. However, the description provides context about the strategies (e.g., chain-of-thought), which aligns with parameters like enableChainOfThought, adding some semantic value.

  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 transforms user requests into optimized prompts using specific techniques. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze-request' or 'quick-enhance', leaving ambiguity about when to use this tool versus alternatives.

  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 says 'Perfect for enhancing any request', implying universal applicability, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or context is given.

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

• analyze-requestA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, rate limits, or read-only nature. It only describes the analysis output without mentioning boundaries or constraints.

  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 moderately concise and uses bullet points for clarity. However, it redundantly lists the insights after stating them, slightly reducing efficiency.

  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 input schema covers all parameters. Without an output schema, the description partially compensates by listing the types of insights (complexity, intent, strategies), but it lacks precise format or field details, making it incomplete for agents needing exact return structure.

  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%, with both parameters (request, domain) described in the schema. The description repeats the schema's descriptions without adding significant new meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

  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 analyzes user requests to provide insights on complexity, intent, and optimization recommendations. It lists specific outputs and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (betterprompt, quick-enhance) by focusing on analysis rather than enhancement, as indicated by the mention of understanding how BetterPrompt would optimize.

  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 implies use for analyzing requests before optimization, stating it helps understand how BetterPrompt would approach a request. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative use cases or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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

• quick-enhanceA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Describes optimizations like clarity improvements and structure enhancement, but no details on exactly what changes are made or any side effects. With no annotations, the burden is higher, and the description is only moderately transparent.

  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?

  Well-structured with a clear opener and bullet points. Concise but could be slightly tighter; every sentence adds value.

  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?

  Adequately covers purpose, usage, and basic behavior for a simple tool. Missing details on return format or error handling, but sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

  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%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema definitions for 'request' and 'tone'. 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?

  Clearly states it enhances a user request with basic optimizations. The name 'quick-enhance' and description specify it as a lightweight version compared to 'betterprompt', distinguishing it from siblings.

  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?

  Explicitly lists use cases: quick improvements, simple requests, faster results. Implies it's an alternative to 'betterprompt' but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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