Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• yang_chercherA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses relevance ranking, French language acceptance, version fallback behavior (most recent installed version used and approximation declared), and the return structure (path, node kind, data type, vendor description). This goes beyond a basic operation statement, though it does not mention potential side effects or error conditions.

  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 moderately long paragraph but every sentence adds value: purpose, use examples, language, vendors, version behavior, and return items. It is front-loaded with the primary function and avoids tautology. It could be slightly more concise, but the length is justified by the detail.

  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 search tool with moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, inputs, outputs, and fallback behavior. The mention of the return items compensates for the lack of an explicit output schema. The only gap is the omission of the 'limite' parameter and potential explicit differentiation from the sibling tool, but overall it is reasonably complete.

  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 explains 'sujet' as a natural-language query, 'plateforme' via vendor examples (nokia_sros, cisco_iosxe, arista_eos), and 'version' with an example ('24.3.R3') and optionality. However, it entirely omits the 'limite' parameter and does not specify exact value formats for 'plateforme', leaving a notable gap.

  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 finds gNMI paths carrying given information and ranks them by relevance ('Trouve les chemins gNMI qui portent une information donnée, classés du plus pertinent au moins pertinent'). It identifies a specific verb, resource, and behavior, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'yang_detail', missing the opportunity for differentiation.

  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: it explains natural-language input with examples ('routes actives et inactives', 'transceiver SFP'), mentions supported vendors, and details the optional 'version' parameter with fallback behavior. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or recommend the sibling tool, but the context 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.

• yang_detailA
  4.2/5.0
  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 discloses the optional `version` behavior (if omitted, the latest installed version is used and the approximation is declared) and lists allowed vendors. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe side effects, which would strengthen transparency.

  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 slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, including parameter details and behavioral notes. The structure is a bit run-on, mixing purpose with param descriptions, but it remains focused and front-loaded with 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?

  The description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and a key behavioral nuance (version approximation). Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. It could mention error cases or more explicitly connect to the sibling tool, but overall it is sufficiently 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%, so the description fully compensates. It explains `chemin` as a path from `yang_chercher`, `plateforme` by listing supported vendors, and `version` as optional with clear behavioral consequences. All three parameters are semantically covered, far exceeding 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Détaille un chemin rendu par `yang_chercher`' and lists what it provides (description, keys, immediate children). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool by focusing on detailing a path already found, not searching for 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?

  It implies usage as a follow-up to `yang_chercher` by noting the input path comes from that tool. The phrase 'pour descendre dans l'arbre sans deviner' gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives.

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