Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate_passwordB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description thoroughly covers side effects (read-only, no side effects), authentication (none for basic use, API key for pro), rate limits (10/day free, unlimited pro), error handling, idempotency, and data privacy. This fully compensates for missing annotations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  While structured with clear sections, the description is overly verbose and repetitive (e.g., Behavioral Transparency duplicates Behavior). It could be much shorter for a simple tool like password generation.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Despite behavioral details, the description lacks essential context about the output format and fails to explain parameters meaningfully. Given 8 parameters and no output schema details provided here, the description is incomplete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The 'Args' section uses generic phrases like 'The length to analyze or process' for every parameter, failing to explain their specific meaning for password generation (e.g., length of password). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should add meaning but does not.

  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 'Generate secure random passwords,' which is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like check_strength, estimate_crack_time, and hash_password that serve different purposes.

  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 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections are generic and mismatched with password generation (e.g., 'structured analysis or classification of inputs'). They do not provide clear guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or alternatives.

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

• check_strengthA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states read-only, stateless, idempotent behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, and data privacy. This is comprehensive and beyond typical.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured with headings but contains redundancy (e.g., 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' overlap). It is longer than necessary, which slightly reduces conciseness.

  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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers authentication, rate limits, idempotency, and error handling. However, the 'When to use' section is too generic, and the parameter descriptions are weak, leaving minor gaps.

  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. The 'Args' section provides basic info ('The password to analyze or process') but lacks detail—e.g., the api_key's purpose is unclear despite optionality. The descriptions add minimal value over the schema's type names.

  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 'Analyze password strength with detailed scoring', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (estimate_crack_time, generate_password, hash_password) as its focus is on strength analysis, not generation or time estimation.

  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 includes 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, providing context. However, the when-to-use guidance ('structured analysis or classification') is generic and does not explicitly differentiate from siblings or specify prerequisites. Lacks mention of alternatives.

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

• hash_passwordA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description provides an extensive 'Behavioral Transparency' section covering side effects (read-only, stateless, idempotent), authentication needs (optional API key for pro tiers), rate limits (10/day free), error handling (structured errors), and data privacy (no storage). Since no annotations exist, this fully compensates and even exceeds expectations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is redundantly structured—'Behavior:' and 'Behavioral Transparency:' sections overlap (both mention read-only, idempotent). The 'When to use' section is vague and adds no real guidance. While it is organized with headings, it could be trimmed to essential information without losing clarity.

  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?

  The description covers the tool's purpose, algorithms, behavioral traits, error handling, and rate limits comprehensively. It mentions the output schema is available (not described, but that's permissible per instructions). However, it lacks explicit instruction on how to use the api_key parameter for pro/enterprise tiers, leaving a minor gap.

  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%, yet the description's 'Args' section only repeats parameter names with generic phrases like 'The password to analyze or process.' It does not clarify valid algorithm values (though listed earlier), the role of salt, or how api_key is used. More detail is needed to guide correct parameter usage beyond the schema.

  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 'Hash a password' and lists supported algorithms (md5, sha1, sha256, sha512, sha3_256), which directly conveys the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like check_strength and estimate_crack_time by focusing on hashing rather than analysis or estimation.

  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 includes 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, but they are generic ('structured analysis or classification') and do not specifically guide when to use hashing versus sibling tools. It fails to mention that this tool is appropriate for password storage or verification, nor does it contrast with check_strength or generate_password.

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

• estimate_crack_timeA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: read-only, stateless, idempotent, rate limits, authentication, error handling, and data privacy. This is comprehensive and exceeds typical disclosure.

  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 well-structured with clear headings and a front-loaded first sentence. While lengthy, each section contributes to understanding. It is appropriately sized for the detail needed, though some redundancy exists between the 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' sections.

  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 description explains purpose, usage, and behavior well, but fails to describe the output format or structure, despite an output schema existing. It also omits any comparison to sibling tools in terms of when to use each. Overall, it is adequate but has notable gaps.

  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?

  The 'Args' section merely restates parameter names (e.g., 'The password to analyze or process') without adding meaning beyond the schema. Default values are mentioned in the schema but not in the description. Given 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

  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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Estimate how long to brute-force a password at given guess rate.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_strength, generate_password, and hash_password, which handle different aspects of password management.

  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 explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, guiding the agent on appropriate contexts. However, the 'When to use' phrasing is somewhat generic ('structured analysis or classification') and does not directly contrast with sibling tools, which could improve clarity.

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