Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• configureC
  2.9/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool configures parameters but doesn't explain if this is a one-time setup, if changes persist, what happens to ongoing research, or if it requires specific permissions. For a configuration tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function and enumerates the configurable parameters. It's front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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?

  Given the complexity of a configuration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like persistence of settings, effects on sibling tools, or error handling. With 3 parameters and no structured output info, more context is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively.

  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 description lists the three parameters (max loops, LLM model, search API), which matches the input schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents each parameter's purpose, constraints, and enums. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

  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 ('configure') and the resource ('research parameters'), specifying what the tool does. It lists the three specific parameters that can be configured, making the purpose concrete. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_status' or 'research', which prevents 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 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 like 'research' or 'get_status'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether this should be called before starting research, or if it's optional. There's no explicit when/when-not context, leaving usage ambiguous.

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

• researchC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool performs web search and LLM synthesis, which implies external API calls and potential latency, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, cost implications, privacy considerations, or what happens when research fails. The description is insufficient for a tool that likely makes external calls.

  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 extremely concise (8 words) and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place by specifying the action ('research'), resource ('topic'), and methods ('web search and LLM synthesis'). There's zero waste or redundancy.

  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?

  Given the complexity of a research tool that likely makes external API calls and performs synthesis, and with no annotations or output schema provided, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like, how comprehensive the research is, what sources are used, or any limitations. For a tool with this level of potential complexity, the description should provide more context.

  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 schema description coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'topic' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't elaborate on topic format, length constraints, or examples. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 with specific verbs ('research', 'search', 'synthesize') and identifies the resource ('topic'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (configure, get_status) by focusing on research rather than configuration or status retrieval. However, it doesn't specify what distinguishes it from other potential research tools that might exist elsewhere.

  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 prerequisites, limitations, or when other tools might be more appropriate. While the sibling tools (configure, get_status) are clearly different in function, there's no explicit comparison or usage context provided.

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

• get_statusB
  3.1/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves status but doesn't describe what the status includes (e.g., format, fields), whether it's real-time or cached, error handling, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about its behavior and output.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

  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?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what 'status' means in terms of return values (e.g., progress indicators, error messages), which is critical for an agent to interpret results. For a tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the expected response.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage, indicating the single parameter '_dummy' is documented as 'No parameters needed' with a const value. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond this, which is acceptable since the schema fully covers it. With zero meaningful parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('current status of any ongoing research'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'configure' and 'research' by focusing on status retrieval rather than configuration or research initiation. However, it doesn't specify what 'status' entails (e.g., progress percentage, completion state, errors), which prevents 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 Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether research must be initiated first), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'research' (which might initiate research) or 'configure' (which might set up research parameters). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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