Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_docsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal the return shape: pages ranked by relevance with paths and descriptions. It does not mention error behavior, query syntax nuances, or any rate or access considerations, but for a read-only search tool it gives the most important behavioral detail.

  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?

  Three sentences with no filler: the first states the action, the second states when to use it, and the third states the return format and follow-up. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

  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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage and return values: pages ranked by relevance with paths and descriptions. It also names the logical next step. Minor gaps like pagination or empty-result behavior are not critical for basic correct invocation.

  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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds context about the query being for keywords, concepts, or topics, which adds a little meaning. This matches the baseline of 3 since the schema already handles 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 searches a documentation set and returns matching pages, which distinguishes it from the sibling list_docs and get_docs_index. It also names get_docs_page as the follow-up, giving the agent a sense of how it fits into a workflow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_docs_full or get_docs_index, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

  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?

  It says 'Use this to find pages containing particular keywords, concepts, or topics,' which is clear guidance for when to invoke it. It also suggests a follow-up action with get_docs_page. It does not state when to prefer alternatives like get_docs_full or get_docs_index, but the provided context is enough for a simple search scenario.

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

• get_docs_indexA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool returns a markdown page containing a list of available pages, and that the result is condensed and LLM-friendly. It does not discuss edge cases or errors, but for a simple read-oriented tool this is reasonably transparent.

  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?

  Three sentences, all of which carry signal: first states the action and resource, second gives usage guidance, third describes the return format and next step. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, return shape, and a follow-up path. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

  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 already fully documents the only parameter, docName. The description does not add additional meaning about the parameter beyond referencing the documentation set, so the 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?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a specific resource ('condensed, LLM-friendly index of the pages in a documentation set'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_docs_page or get_docs_full. It also frames its role as an exploration entry point, which separates it from search_docs and list_docs.

  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?

  It explicitly states when to use this tool ('for initial exploration to understand what's covered') and suggests a follow-up action ('Follow up with get_docs_page to get full content'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it against all siblings, but the usage context is clear.

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

• get_docs_fullA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose key expectations: returns a 'single consolidated file' and a 'large volume of text.' It warns the agent about the payload size. It doesn't detail return format or error behavior, but for a simple retrieval tool this is solid disclosure.

  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?

  Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines what the tool does, the second states when to use it, and the third warns about output size and offers alternatives. Front-loaded and waste-free.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a single-parameter read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the usage scenario, the size caveat, and sibling alternatives. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

  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 covers 100% of parameters with a clear description ('Name of the documentation set'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra meaning to docName, but it doesn't need to since the schema already explains 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves the complete documentation content in a single consolidated file.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from get_docs_page and search_docs by emphasizing the comprehensive, consolidated nature of the result.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly says 'Use this when you need comprehensive knowledge or need to analyze the full documentation context' and then points to alternatives ('consider using get_docs_page or search_docs for targeted information'). This gives the agent a clear decision rule and names the alternatives.

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

• get_docs_pageA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the tool 'Retrieves' and 'Returns the complete content', indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., what happens if the page path is invalid) or potential prerequisites beyond the page identification step. For a straightforward read tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

  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 two sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, immediately followed by actionable usage guidance and a return-type statement. Every sentence earns its place, keeping it concise and scannable.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a simple 2-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential context: the action, the return value ('complete content'), and the recommended workflow using sibling tools. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly without further clarification. Minor gaps like error responses are not critical for this tool's nature.

  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%, meaning both parameters already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds little new parameter-level meaning—it reiterates 'relative path' and provides a usage context without elaborating on the parameters themselves. Per the calibration, a baseline 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.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieves', the resource 'specific documentation page's content', and the method 'using its relative path'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it returns a single page's complete content and mentions the prior steps of using get_docs_index or search_docs. This makes it unambiguous which tool to pick.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description explicitly instructs to use this tool after identifying the relevant page via get_docs_index or search_docs, providing a clear workflow. It also states the intended use case ('detailed information about a known topic'), which helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions are needed for this simple read operation.

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

• list_docsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 discloses that this is a non-mutating list operation and specifies the output fields: name, description, and source URL for each documentation set. It does not mention pagination or data freshness, but the tool is simple and parameterless.

  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 three purposeful sentences: the first defines the scope, the second establishes usage ordering, and the third specifies the returned fields. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant statements.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description provides all necessary invocation context: return values, the ordering requirement, and why the tool is a prerequisite for other documentation tools. Nothing critical is omitted.

  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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter meanings to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add 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 states a specific action, 'Lists all available documentation libraries and frameworks,' and identifies the tool's role as the discovery step required before other documentation tools. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling retrieval and search tools even without naming them individually.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  It explicitly instructs the agent to use this tool as the first step and states it is required before using other documentation tools because callers need the docName. This provides a clear when-to-use and why, with the alternative tool category implied as everything that follows.

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