Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_device_guidesA
  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 transparency burden. It discloses the projective output, that optional fields are omitted when unavailable, and adds a licensing/usage restriction (CC BY-NC-SA, non-commercial). It does not cover error handling or pagination, but it goes beyond the schema.

  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 front-loaded with the main action, then organizes return format, args, and license note in a logical, compact structure. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no irrelevant content.

  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 one-parameter list tool, the description covers the essential elements: action, input, output shape, and legal usage. The output schema likely documents return fields, so further detail isn't necessary. Edge cases like empty results or invalid title are not addressed, but they are minor gaps.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the single title parameter with a concrete example ('iPhone'), which is helpful. It stops short of specifying matching rules (exact vs partial) or case sensitivity, but it is clear enough for basic use.

  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 clear, specific verb-resource statement: 'List the repair guides available for a device.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_guide (retrieving a single guide) and search_guides (query-based search), and it also names the return fields, leaving no ambiguity.

  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 usage context by specifying that it works 'for a device' and requires a title, but it never explicitly states when to choose this over search_guides or get_guide, nor does it mention exclusions. The guidance is implied, not overt.

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

• get_mediaA
  4.3/5.0
  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 ungenerated sizes are absent, that access is permission-checked (errors for unauthorized content), and includes a licensing note. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

  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 and well-structured, with a clear one-line purpose, a behavior summary, and a labeled Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the licensing note is brief and relevant.

  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 tool, the description covers purpose, behavior, permissions, licensing, and parameters. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it still describes CDN size URLs and absent sizes, making it complete for effective use.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains media_id with an example (14056 or '14056'), enumerates media_type values ('images', 'videos', 'documents'), and notes the default 'images'. This adds practical guidance beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('media object's CDN URLs by id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (guides, devices, users) by focusing on media retrieval.

  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 usage for resolving media URLs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude other tools. No reference to sibling tools or alternative approaches is provided.

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

• get_deviceA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the output structure, including specific field truncations (summary first 500 chars, children names only), and explains the rationale (raw page ~238KB). It also adds usage constraints via licensing and non-commercial use. It lacks explicit error behavior or rate limits, but is comprehensive for core 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 well-structured and dense: a one-sentence purpose, a concise return-field list, a size rationale, a parameter definition, and a license note. Every sentence adds value with no filler, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

  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 single-parameter, read-only overview tool, this description covers purpose, output details, and a crucial usage caveat (non-commercial license). It does not mention sibling-specific alternatives or error cases, but the richness of return details makes it sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

  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 no parameter descriptions and coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by defining 'title' as 'device title' and providing an example ('iPhone'), adding meaning that the schema lacks. This exceeds baseline for undocumented 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 opens with 'Get a compact overview of a device wiki page,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_guide by emphasizing the compact projection and listing exact return fields, making its purpose clear and non-redundant.

  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 implies use cases through 'compact overview' and mentions keeping responses small for context budgets, giving practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, missing the full 'when vs alternatives' criterion.

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

• get_userA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it specifies the return dict, the all-or-nothing failure mode that never returns partial data, unconditional validation of limit (even when unused), and API clamping at 200. This goes well beyond a basic fetch, describing error semantics and edge cases.

  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 structured with an Args section and front-loaded purpose, but it is somewhat long and includes a QA reference (F12-7) that is irrelevant to callers. Overall it's well-organized and each sentence earns its place, but slight over-elaboration keeps it from a top score.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (conditional merging, validation quirks) and lack of annotations, the description covers all necessary behavior: return shape, errors, licensing, and parameter constraints. Output schema exists, so full return expansion is unnecessary; the description is complete for invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by documenting each parameter in detail: user_id accepts strings or ints, include_guides accepts booleans/1/0 with clean rejection, and limit has range, default, clamping, and unconditional validation notes. This provides essential meaning the schema omits.

  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 the core purpose with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('iFixit contributor profile'), differentiating it from sibling guide/device tools. It also clarifies the optional guide-merge behavior, further scoping the functionality.

  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 does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_guide. Usage is implied by the 'Fetch a profile' verb, but there are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so this is a gap.

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

• browse_categoriesA
  4.6/5.0
  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 discloses that only category names are returned (not the full 1.5MB raw tree), that a leaf or empty subtree yields an empty list, and that data is licensed CC BY-NC-SA (non-commercial). It doesn't explicitly state whether invalid paths cause errors, but the overall behavior is well specified. This is solid 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 well-structured, starting with a one-sentence purpose, then behavior details, arg explanation, and a licensing note. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff. The format is easy to scan and front-loaded with the most important information.

  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 one-parameter browsing tool, the description covers all essential context: top-level behavior, nested path behavior, leaf behavior, return format (names only), and data licensing. The presence of an output schema likely covers return structure, so the description doesn't need to explain it. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate for the single 'path' parameter. It does: it explains that path is optional, slash-separated, gives examples ('Mac' or 'Mac/Mac Laptop'), and clarifies that an empty string means the top level. This is exemplary parameter documentation.

  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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Browse iFixit's device category tree.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which handle guides, devices, users) by focusing on category navigation. The behavior with and without a path is explained, making the purpose unmistakable.

  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 context on when to use the tool: use it with no path for top-level categories, or with a slash-separated path to descend into the tree. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools makes the usage scenario obvious. It falls just short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly say 'for guides use list_device_guides' or similar.

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

• get_maintenance_scheduleA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers output shape, inheritance semantics, the HTTP 200 empty-schedule signal, and even the licensing restriction (non-commercial use). This is thorough and goes beyond what the schema alone conveys.

  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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, then a clear return-value explanation, an Args section, and a licensing note. No sentence is wasted, and all important details are presented compactly.

  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 tool with a single required parameter, the description is highly complete. It explains the return schema, the inherited_from case, the no-schedule case (HTTP 200, not error), and licensing. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to document return values, but the description already does so thoroughly.

  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 provides no description for the 'title' parameter (0% schema coverage). The description compensates by explaining that 'title' is the device title and providing an example ('iPhone'). This adds meaningful semantic information beyond the bare 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 begins with a specific verb+resource construction: 'Get a device's maintenance schedule.' It clearly defines the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like get_device or list_device_guides by focusing on maintenance schedule retrieval.

  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 context: use this tool by supplying a device title to obtain its maintenance schedule. It also explains important edge-case behavior (empty schedules are normal, not errors) and inheritance behavior, giving the agent a solid sense of when and how to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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

• get_guideA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what each detail level returns (metadata, parts, tools, step titles vs. full rendered text), that max_steps is ignored in summary mode, and includes a WARNING about responses exceeding 250KB. It also discloses the iFixit CC BY-NC-SA data license and non-commercial restriction, which is critical context for usage.

  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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, then paragraph explanations, then a labeled Args list. Every sentence adds value — the warnings, the max_steps caveat, and the licensing note are all necessary. It's detailed but not redundant, hitting the right balance for the tool's complexity.

  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 tool has 4 parameters, one required, and the description covers all of them with examples and caveats. The presence of an output schema handles return value details, so the description doesn't need to list them. It covers edge cases (max_steps ignored in summary, large response sizes) and licensing, making it fully complete for correct invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter in the Args block: guideid with an example, detail with its two allowed values and default, max_steps explaining that it only applies to detail='full', and lang with an example and mapping to the API's langid parameter. This is far beyond what the bare schema provides.

  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 'Fetch a repair guide by id.' This specifies the exact verb (fetch), the resource (repair guide), and the key identifier (id). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_guides or list_device_guides, which deal with finding guides rather than retrieving a specific one.

  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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (when you have a guide id) and how to choose between detail='summary' and detail='full'. It even advises preferring summary for large guides. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., 'use search_guides to find a guide'). This falls just short of the top tier due to the lack of explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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

• search_guidesA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses result limits (up to 10), result compaction for guides, pass-through for other types, volatility of results ('never cached'), parameter mapping to API fields, and licensing restrictions (CC BY-NC-SA). This exceeds typical descriptions.

  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 well-organized and front-loaded: it starts with purpose, then return format, then usage, then parameter details, and ends with licensing. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The structure—a brief overview followed by a bullet-like Args list—is easy to parse.

  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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, multiple result types, API mappings), the description covers all necessary context: query syntax, result structure, limits, volatility, and licensing. An output schema exists but the description already provides return value details, so the context is fully complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section fully compensates by explaining every parameter with types, examples, defaults, and API mappings. For instance, it clarifies that 'device' maps to guideDevice, 'lang' to langid, and doctypes accepts a specific value list. This is highly informative.

  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 'Search' and the resource 'iFixit's catalog for repair guides (and other content types)'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it returns multiple result types and mentions the device parameter for scoping, which separates it from list_device_guides and get_guide.

  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 context: how to use the device parameter to scope results, how doctypes restrict result types, and the lang parameter for localization. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives (e.g., 'for a specific device use list_device_guides'), but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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