Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• build_scenarioB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, side effects, auth requirements, or output format. It only states what it does without any transparency beyond that.

  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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose, but listing all 15 frameworks makes it somewhat verbose. However, it remains focused and actionable.

  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 no output schema and three parameters, the description does not explain return values, pagination, or any behavioral constraints. It is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

  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 baseline is 3. The description redundantly lists the frameworks already present in the schema enum, adding minimal new meaning for parameters.

  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 action ('construct') and the resource ('rigorous, insightful what-if scenarios'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'interpret_text' or 'strategic_alignment_analysis' by listing 15 specific foresight frameworks.

  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 implies use for scenario building but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• rune_readingA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: uses 24 runes, 37+ spreads, 14-layer stack, and outputs traditional/modern meanings. However, it omits details about randomness, state, or output format.

  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 somewhat verbose and includes the claim of '37+ spread layouts' while the enum only lists 8, which may mislead. It front-loads the core purpose but could be trimmed for clarity.

  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 lack of output schema, the description should hint at return format; it only vaguely says 'provides meanings.' Also, the spread enumeration inconsistency reduces completeness.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the depth parameter (surface/deep/full) and the overall interpretive process, going beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

  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 performs Elder Futhark rune divination with specific rune count, spread layouts, and interpretive layers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like build_scenario or interpret_text.

  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 prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts for divination.

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

• interpret_textA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the 8 lenses but does not describe the output format, depth, or process, leaving gaps about what the agent can expect.

  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 efficient front-loading of the core purpose and usage guidance, every word earning its place.

  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?

  The tool has no output schema and 3 parameters. The description fails to explain what the output looks like or the format of the analysis, which is critical for a complex analytical tool.

  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%, so the description adds limited value beyond listing the lens names. It does not elaborate on parameter semantics like the 'lens' enum values or the optional 'context' usage.

  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 text using 8 specific hermeneutic lenses, distinguishing it from sibling tools like build_scenario or rune_reading through its unique interpretative focus.

  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 clear usage scenarios such as interpreting, analyzing meaning, and decoding messages, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with siblings.

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

• strategic_alignment_analysisA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details the 6-phase protocol and the three scales, providing good transparency about the tool's methodology. However, it does not mention output format or any side effects.

  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 concise, using three sentences to state purpose, protocol, and scales. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The protocol listing is slightly lengthy but informative.

  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 complexity (4 required parameters, no output schema), the description explains the process well but omits details about the output format or what the agent should expect after invoking it.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by explaining the timeframes associated with scale, the meaning of 'all' for focus_dimension, and the difference between prospective and retrospective modes.

  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's purpose: detecting where short-term optimization builds long-term fragility. It distinguishes itself from siblings (build_scenario, interpret_text, rune_reading) by specifying a unique protocol and analytical focus.

  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 explains when to use the tool (analyzing decisions/strategies for alignment). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides implicit guidance.

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