Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• divergent_thinkingA
  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 carries full burden. It discloses that the tool uses structured processes, single-shot methods, and interactive context specification. It mentions parameter routing and validation. As a creativity tool, it is expected to be non-destructive, and the description aligns with that. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, rate limits, or authorization needs, but these are less relevant for such a tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured with clear sections but is overly verbose. It contains redundancy, such as repeating parameter details in 'PARAMETERS EXPLAINED' and 'YOU SHOULD'. The 'KEY FEATURES' section overlaps with usage. While structured, it could be trimmed to half without losing essential information, achieving better conciseness.

  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 (16 parameters, 6 methods, no output schema), the description is extremely comprehensive. It covers all parameters with explanations, provides usage guidance for each method, includes multiple examples, and addresses context parameters like domain, audience, time period, resources, and goals. It compensates for the lack of output schema by thoroughly describing the tool's behavior and intended use.

  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 100%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema. For example, it explains each thinking_method in detail, provides examples for domain (list of 78+ options), and gives context for method-specific parameters like thought2, constraint, and perspective_type. It includes a 'PARAMETERS EXPLAINED' section and usage examples, substantially enhancing parameter understanding.

  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: 'generating creative thoughts and breakthrough ideas through structured divergent thinking processes.' It distinguishes between 6 different methods, providing a specific verb (generate) and resource (creative thoughts/ideas). Since there are no sibling tools, differentiation is not needed.

  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 includes a dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' section listing primary use cases and quick tasks. It provides guidance on choosing the appropriate thinking_method based on need (e.g., complex problems → structured_process, quick brainstorming → generate_branches). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide exclusions, only alternatives within the tool.

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