Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_kendo_componentsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description implies a read-only operation (retrieves a list), which is non-destructive. However, with no annotations, it doesn't elaborate on response format or potential limitations, but its simplicity makes this acceptable.

  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?

  A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. No extraneous information.

  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 list retrieval with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose. It lacks details on the list's content (e.g., names only), but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely complete.

  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?

  No parameters exist, so the description does not need to provide parameter details. Schema coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline for 0 params.

  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 retrieves a list of Kendo UI for Angular components. It distinguishes from siblings like list_component_api (API) and list_component_topics (topics), though 'main' is slightly vague.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_component_api or list_component_topics. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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

• list_component_apiA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the output as a list but does not detail any behavioral aspects like no side effects, authentication, or rate limits. For a simple read-only tool, it's adequate but minimal.

  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?

  Single sentence, direct and to the point. No unnecessary words, effectively communicates the core purpose.

  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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It states the input and what is returned (components, directives, etc.). Could mention output format, but not essential for a list of API references.

  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?

  With schema coverage at 100%, the description adds little beyond the schema. The parameter 'componentId' is clearly described in both, but the description provides no extra syntactic or formatting details.

  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 returns a list of detailed API references for a given component ID, using a specific verb 'returns' and resource 'list of API references'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_component_topics and list_kendo_components.

  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 when API references for a component are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The example helps, but no formal guidelines.

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

• read_demo_sourceA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly but does not detail potential errors, authentication needs, or return format. It is adequate but not rich.

  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, both essential. The first sentence states the action, the second provides critical usage guidance. No wasted words.

  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 read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and input source. It could mention error handling or output nature but is largely complete given the tool's simplicity.

  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 schema already describes metaUrl well. The description repeats that metaUrl comes from read_kendo_doc output, which is also in the schema description. Adds little extra meaning 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 clearly states it 'Fetches the source code files for a specific Kendo UI demo example', specifying the verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_component_api or read_kendo_doc by focusing on demo source code 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 explicitly directs the agent to use metaUrl values from read_kendo_doc output, providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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

• list_component_topicsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the operation as returning data, but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or mention any side effects, auth requirements, or potential pitfalls. For a simple list 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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by usage guidance. No wasted words.

  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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and usage alternatives. It could optionally mention the return format (e.g., list of strings or objects), but omission is minor given the tool's straightforward 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 coverage is 100%. The description adds an example ('grid', 'buttons', 'dropdowns') and notes the identifier is from the URL, which is helpful context but does not significantly extend the schema's own parameter description.

  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?

  Description clearly states it returns a list of subtopics and articles given a component ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling list_component_api by noting the alternative use case.

  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 tells when to use list_component_api instead (for deep API references), providing clear guidance on tool selection.

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

• read_kendo_docA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, but the description discloses that the tool returns an article in Markdown format with a list of demos. Being a read-only operation, no destructive behavior exists. Lacks error handling details, but adequate for a simple read.

  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 concise sentences: first conveys core purpose and format, second adds demo info and sibling guidance. No wasted words.

  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 documentation reader with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers input and output behavior. Minor omission: no mention of error states. Overall complete enough for typical 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 covers the only parameter (path) with already a clear description. The description adds practical guidance: 'Remember to include the component prefix if you extracted it from a grouped list', which adds value 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?

  Description clearly states verb ('reads') and resource ('Kendo UI documentation article') and adds format ('Markdown') and included demos. Distinguishes from sibling read_demo_source.

  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?

  Explicitly names a sibling alternative (read_demo_source) for when demo source code is needed. Lacks explicit when-not conditions for other siblings, but the purpose is specific enough.

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