Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_docsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 does not mention side effects, read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, or any behavioral traits beyond the obvious 'search' action. The description adds no insight into what happens during the search or what the response contains.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and goes straight to the point. No fluff or redundancy.

  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 is moderately simple but has no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter documentation. The description covers the what and when but omits return format, query construction, component filter usage, and potential limitations. Given the available structured data, it remains incomplete.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  schema_description_coverage is 0% and the description does not reference any parameters (query, limit, component). It only implies searching for components but does not explain how to use parameters or their semantics. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

  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 explicitly states 'Pesquisa na documentação oficial sincronizada do GovBR Design System' (searches the official synchronized documentation), which clearly identifies the action (search) and resource (GovBR-DS docs). It distinguishes from siblings like list_components and get_component by focusing on searching across documentation rather than retrieving specific component details.

  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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('sempre que precisar responder perguntas sobre componentes, uso, comportamento, acessibilidade, padrões ou recomendações do GovBR-DS') and even recommends it over web search for GovBR-DS questions. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' relative to sibling tools, but the context is clear.

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

• list_componentsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important scope constraint (components 'available on this server'), but does not describe output format, ordering, pagination, or confirm the read-only nature beyond the verb 'list'. Adequate for a simple operation, but lacks richer behavioral context.

  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, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or 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 parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what is listed, the scope (this server), and the intended use case. While it doesn't specify the return shape, the simplicity of a list tool makes this an acceptable gap.

  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 covers 100% (empty schema). Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed.

  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 'Lists the documented components of GovBR Design System available on this server' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing this as the discovery gateway for which GovBR-DS components can be queried, contrasting with get_component and search_docs.

  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 explicit usage context: 'Use to discover which GovBR-DS components can be consulted.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusionary conditions. A clear, non-exhaustive guidance.

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

• get_componentA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The tool name and description imply a read-only operation without side effects, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is safe or what the response format will be. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden but remains reasonably transparent.

  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, consisting of one functional sentence and a usage note. It is well-structured and directly addresses the tool's purpose without unnecessary verbosity.

  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 provides sufficient context for a simple retrieval tool, indicating the source (GovBR Design System) and the condition for use (knowing the component). It does not detail the output structure, but given the lack of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation, it is adequately 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?

  The only parameter 'name' is defined in the schema with type and minLength but no description. The tool description implies that 'name' should be the component name, but does not provide explicit format or examples. The parameter semantics are only partially conveyed.

  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 retrieves complete official documentation for a specific GovBR Design System component, and explicitly notes it should be used when the component name is already known, distinguishing it from the sibling tools list_components and search_docs.

  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?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use quando já souber qual componente GovBR-DS precisa consultar.' This clearly indicates it is for direct retrieval by name, contrasting with listing or searching.

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