Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_documentsB
  3.3/5.0
  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 adds the detail that documents are 'currently embedded (searchable)', which is useful, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, output format, pagination, or potential 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?

  Two sentences with no redundancy. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the parameter note is concise. Every word earns its place.

  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 tool is simple (single parameter, no output schema), but the description omits information about the return format and any prerequisites like authentication. While the sibling check_auth hints at auth needs, the description itself does not address it. Adequate but with clear gaps for an unannotated 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% — the workspace parameter is fully documented with 'Workspace name or slug (from list_workspaces)'. The description's 'Accepts a workspace name or slug' repeats the schema without adding meaningful new semantics. Baseline of 3 applies.

  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 verb ('List') and resource ('documents') with a clarifying qualifier ('currently embedded (searchable)') that distinguishes it from siblings like list_workspaces and query_workspace. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the sibling names. There is no mention of conditions or exclusion criteria.

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

• check_authA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool tests connectivity and authentication, and that it returns whether authentication succeeded. It does not mention side effects (none expected), error behavior, or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter read-only check this is largely adequate.

  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?

  Two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the return value is stated. Every word 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 simple auth check with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains the purpose and the return semantics. It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., boolean vs. message), but 'whether authentication succeeded' implies a boolean. A brief note on when to use it would push this to a 5.

  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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none to document.

  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 verifies the configured API key can reach AnythingLLM and returns whether authentication succeeded. This distinguishes it from the sibling data-operation tools, which work with workspaces and documents. The verb 'verify' plus the specific resource makes the purpose unambiguous.

  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 this is a preflight check for authentication, but it does not explicitly say when to use it or how it relates to the sibling tools. There is no guidance like 'run this before calling query_workspace' or 'use when you encounter auth errors.' The context is clear enough, but explicit instructions are missing.

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

• query_workspaceA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait, and elaborates on how 'query' mode grounds answers in documents while 'chat' mode allows general knowledge. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and covers the main safety aspect.

  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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core purpose, followed by a concise explanation of modes. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy.

  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 read-only query tool with a well-documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, modes, and safety. It does not specify the return format (e.g., citations structure), but that is not critical for invoking the tool 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds no new parameter-level information beyond reinforcing the mode behavior already described in the schema. It does not clarify parameter formats or edge cases, so the baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Ask' and the resource 'workspace's embedded documents', and differentiates itself from sibling tools like list_documents and list_workspaces by focusing on natural-language questioning. The mention of modes (query/chat) further clarifies its scope.

  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 the two modes and when each is appropriate (grounded vs general knowledge), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. Context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but lacks explicit alternatives.

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

• list_workspacesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool lists workspaces, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. While it doesn't explicitly mention 'read-only' or lack of side effects, the operation is inherently non-destructive and the description gives no indication of hidden 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 concise, two sentences, and directly to the point. It includes the essential information without any redundancy or unnecessary detail.

  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?

  The description tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns (display name and slug), and how to use that output with other tools. This is sufficient for a simple listing operation with no output schema defined.

  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 tool has zero parameters, so no parameter explanations are needed. The description's mention of output fields (display name and slug) indirectly clarifies what the tool returns, satisfying the baseline for a parameterless tool.

  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 function: listing all AnythingLLM workspaces and returning their display name and slug. This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_auth, list_documents, and query_workspace.

  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 guidance by stating 'Use a name or slug from here with the other tools,' which tells the agent how to utilize the output. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools for situations where this tool is not appropriate, though the zero-parameter simplicity makes misuse unlikely.

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