Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• call_esiA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds some value by stating the declared-parameters constraint and the inability to select mutating operations. However, it misrepresents the allowed method set by saying 'GET/HEAD' while the schema's body parameter supports read-only POST operations, which is a meaningful behavioral omission.

  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?

  Three short sentences with no filler: action comes first, followed by the parameter constraint and the mutation exclusion. Every sentence earns its place.

  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?

  For a generic dispatch tool with no output schema, the description leaves important context unstated: it does not mention that responses follow the selected operation's schema, how to discover valid operationIds, or the read-only POST exception. The GET/HEAD vs POST body ambiguity further reduces completeness.

  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 80%, so most parameters (path, query, headers, body) are already documented in the schema. The main description adds only that operationId selects the operation and that undeclared parameters are rejected, which is useful but not substantial enough to exceed the baseline.

  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 identifies the action ('Execute'), the resource ('ESI GET/HEAD operation selected by operationId'), and the read-only scope, which distinguishes it from the sibling search/inspection tools. However, the 'GET/HEAD' qualifier is too narrow because the body parameter schema explicitly mentions 'semantically read-only bulk lookup POST operations,' creating an internal inconsistency.

  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 gives explicit when-not guidance: mutating ESI operations cannot be selected and only schema-declared parameters are accepted. It does not name the sibling tools as alternatives for discovering or inspecting operations, so it stops short of full 5-level routing guidance.

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

• search_esi_operationsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the search-mode behavior and discovery positioning, but doesn't describe the output shape or clarify that results are operation metadata rather than live game data.

  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 short sentences with no filler. The action and search dimensions are front-loaded, and 'Start here...' adds useful routing guidance that earns its place.

  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 optional-parameter search tool with rich annotations, the description covers what it finds and how to search. The only notable gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the return format or that the tool returns operation metadata rather than actual game data, but the tool's purpose is still clear enough for correct invocation.

  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 schema already describes tag, query, and authenticated; the description reinforces these by mapping them to natural-language keywords, exact tag, and authentication requirement. It doesn't mention `limit`, but the schema provides a default and min/max, making it sufficiently clear.

  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 ('Find'), a clear resource ('read-only EVE Online ESI operations'), and three explicit search dimensions (keywords, tag, authentication requirement). This distinguishes it from the get/call siblings and makes the tool's role obvious.

  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?

  'Start here when choosing which game data to retrieve' gives clear context and positioning as the discovery step. It does not explicitly name get_esi_operation or call_esi as alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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

• get_esi_operationA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying exactly what metadata will be returned and confirms the read-only nature. It does not cover error behavior for unknown operationIds, but this is not a major gap given the annotations and scope.

  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, dense sentence that front-loads the main action and enumerates the return contents without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple interface.

  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?

  For a simple one-parameter introspection tool, the description fully covers what the tool returns and when to use it. There is no output schema, so the explicit enumeration of returned metadata is sufficient. Sibling tool names provide the surrounding workflow context.

  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 provides no description for operationId and coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It conveys the general purpose but does not explicitly explain that operationId should be a valid ESI operation identifier returned by search_esi_operations. The parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, which raises it from 2, but the description could have stated this relationship more directly.

  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 ('Return') and names the exact resource ('one read-only ESI operation') and the specific metadata delivered (path/query/header parameters, OAuth scopes, cache hints, rate-limit metadata). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_esi_operations and call_esi tools.

  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 phrase 'before calling it' explicitly identifies this as a pre-call inspection tool, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name search_esi_operations as the alternative for discovering operations, but the sibling list and the tool's purpose imply this distinction.

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