Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• hash_textB
  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. It states the action ('hash a string') but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if the operation is deterministic, reversible, or idempotent; mention performance or rate limits; describe error handling (e.g., for empty strings); or explain the output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('hash a string') and includes essential detail (SHA-256). Every part earns its place, 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.

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter guidance, it lacks context on behavior, usage, and constraints. It's adequate for basic understanding but has clear gaps in guiding effective use.

  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 adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It implies the 'text' parameter is the string to be hashed, but with 0% schema description coverage, the schema only defines 'text' as a string without context. The description doesn't elaborate on constraints (e.g., length limits, encoding) or provide examples. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of added semantic detail reduces it to 3.

  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 ('hash') and resource ('a string'), specifying the algorithm (SHA-256). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add', 'scrape_page', and 'search_docs' by focusing on cryptographic hashing rather than arithmetic, web scraping, or document search. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling hashing tools (e.g., 'hash_text_md5'), so it's not a perfect 5.

  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 use cases (e.g., data integrity checks, password hashing), prerequisites, or comparisons to other tools. With siblings like 'add' and 'search_docs', there's no explicit context for choosing 'hash_text' over them, leaving usage unclear.

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

• scrape_pageB
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the scraping action and method ('Jina reader'), but fails to disclose critical traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what content is extracted (e.g., text, HTML). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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 without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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's moderate complexity (web scraping with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on behavioral aspects and parameter usage, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'url' parameter is for specifying the web page to scrape, but adds no details beyond what the schema name suggests (e.g., format, validation, or examples). With only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description provides minimal additional meaning.

  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 action ('scrape') and resource ('content of a web page'), specifying the method ('using Jina reader'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add', 'hash_text', and 'search_docs' by focusing on web scraping, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

  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, such as other scraping methods or tools for similar tasks. It lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without explicit usage instructions.

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

• search_docsB
  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. It mentions searching but doesn't describe what kind of results to expect, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or how results are returned. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

  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 communicates the core function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the essential information.

  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 an output schema (which handles return values) and only one simple parameter, the description is reasonably complete for basic understanding. However, it lacks important contextual details about search behavior, result format, or limitations that would be helpful for an agent.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the 'query' parameter but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid query, search syntax, or examples. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's implied by the parameter name, meeting the baseline for this coverage level.

  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 action ('Search') and target resource ('FastMCP documentation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools (which are unrelated to documentation search), so it doesn't reach the highest score of 5.

  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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios.

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

• addB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Add two numbers' implies a mathematical operation but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., overflow), performance characteristics, or side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

  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 perfectly concise at three words, front-loading the core functionality with zero wasted text. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 extreme simplicity (basic arithmetic operation), two straightforward parameters, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states what the tool does, though it lacks behavioral context that would be helpful given the absence of annotations.

  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 'Add two numbers' implicitly defines the semantics of both parameters (a and b) as numbers to be added, which adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only documentation (integers). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by clarifying what the parameters represent, though it doesn't specify format constraints beyond the implied numeric nature.

  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 'Add two numbers' clearly states the verb ('Add') and resource ('two numbers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from siblings, but since sibling tools (hash_text, scrape_page, search_docs) perform completely different functions, differentiation isn't necessary here.

  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. While the tool's purpose is simple and siblings are unrelated, there's no mention of context, prerequisites, or limitations. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.

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