Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fanuc_lint_lsB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 does add useful context by stating the operation is offline and returns structured diagnostics, but it does not discuss side effects, permissions, failure modes, or limitations.

  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 a single, front-loaded sentence where each component adds value: action, resource, mode, and output. There is no redundancy or filler.

  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?

  An output schema exists, so omitting return-value details is acceptable, but the description fails to explain how the two optional inputs interact or when each should be used. Combined with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, this leaves a significant gap in call construction.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the path or text parameters, their relationship, or which one should be supplied. The word 'source' is too generic to help an agent construct the correct invocation.

  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 uses 'Lint' as a specific action and identifies the resource ('FANUC LS source'), the mode ('offline'), and the result ('structured diagnostics'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like fanuc_parse_ls and fanuc_generate_ls_draft.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus fanuc_parse_ls or fanuc_generate_ls_draft, nor whether callers should provide path, text, or both. An agent would have to infer the usage context from the tool name alone.

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

• fanuc_generate_ls_draftB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the generated output is explicitly non-production and offline, which are useful safety cues. However, it does not mention side effects, output format, whether files are written, or any validation behavior.

  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 single tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and purpose, though it is slightly terse given how little parameter documentation exists.

  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?

  While the output schema exists and may explain return values, the tool has no parameter documentation, no usage context, and no annotations. For a tool accepting a completely open nested object, the description is too minimal to allow an agent to construct a valid invocation confidently.

  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?

  The schema has one undocumented object parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. Saying 'from structured input' adds a little meaning, but it does not explain the shape, required fields, or semantics of the 'draft' object. This is insufficient for an opaque nested object parameter.

  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 uses a specific verb ('generate') and names both the resource ('FANUC LS offline draft') and the input ('structured input'). The phrase 'explicitly non-production' clarifies intent and differentiates it from parsing/linting siblings.

  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 this tool is for drafting FANUC LS content before further analysis, parsing, or linting by siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any workflow ordering or exclusions.

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

• fanuc_parse_lsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does clarify the 'exactly one' exclusivity constraint (path XOR text), which is useful, but it doesn't disclose error behavior for invalid paths, malformed LS syntax, or what happens when both path and text are provided. The expected parse result structure is available in the output schema, which mitigates some gaps.

  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?

  One sentence with high information density: the action, resource, and the key input constraint are all present with zero filler. This is appropriately concise for a simple two-parameter tool.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The output schema is rich and fully defines the return shape (blocks with addresses, operands, etc.), so the description doesn't need to repeat that. However, it doesn't cover error cases, the precise semantics of 'exactly one' enforcement, or any limits on file size/text length. Adequate for a straightforward parser but with room to add failure-mode transparency.

  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%, and the two parameters (path and text) have no per-parameter descriptions. The description does clarify that they are mutually exclusive alternatives, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema, but it doesn't specify path format, text encoding, or precedence rules if both are supplied.

  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 states a clear verb ('Parse'), a specific resource ('FANUC LS source'), and the input constraint ('exactly one local .ls path or LS text string'). It distinguishes the tool as the parsing entry point compared to sibling tools that format and validate, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

  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 the tool is for converting raw LS source into structured data, but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over the sibling formatting or validation tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or input restrictions beyond 'exactly one' source.

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

• step_analyzeA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool works offline and performs no CAM, deployment, or robot control, which implies a non-interactive, read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly state whether the file is modified or what the analysis returns, leaving some gaps.

  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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every part earns its place, and the exclusion caveat is concise and clear.

  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 tool with a single path parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it indicates the file type, local scope, offline operation, and what the tool does not do. It does not detail the output content, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for that in the description.

  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 schema has zero description coverage for the 'path' parameter, but the description adds that the file is a local STEP/STP file, which clarifies the parameter's meaning. It does not provide additional detail about path format, validation, or extension behavior, so the compensation is only partial.

  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: analyzing a local STEP/STP file offline. The verb 'analyze' and resource 'STEP/STP file' are specific, and the sibling tools are all focused on Fanuc LS files, so this tool is easily distinguishable.

  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 that this is an offline analysis tool and explicitly states that CAM, deployment, and robot control are not performed. This gives an agent useful exclusion criteria for when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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