Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• hyperiux_get_effectA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations supply readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, but the description goes far beyond them: it discloses the conditional access for Pro effects, the rate-limit response shape, the install_limit/install_remaining fields, and explicitly states that rate-limited or Pro-without-token responses are not errors. This gives an agent full expectation for all non-happy paths.

  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?

  Despite being long, every section earns its place: main purpose, args, return structure, auth/rate limit edge cases, examples, and error handling. The bullet/heading structure makes it easy to parse, and the core result is front-loaded before the longer edge-case details.

  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?

  With no output schema, the description fully specifies the return JSON shape, conditionally omitted fields, and the meaning of install_limit/install_remaining. It also covers error handling, examples, and conditions for include_source. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

  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 input schema already covers both parameters thoroughly, including the default for include_source and the exact meaning of the slug. The description's parameter section restates this with no additional semantic value beyond what schema descriptions already proide, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details for one Hyperiux Vault effect by its exact slug' and lists the exact fields returned. It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling hyperiux_list_effects via the 'Don't use when' guidance, making the tool's scope immediately clear.

  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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus the sibling: 'Don't use when: you don't have an exact slug yet - use hyperiux_list_effects first.' It also gives concrete example queries and covers edge cases like unauthenticated Pro lookups and rate-limited free lookups.

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

• hyperiux_list_categoriesA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-redundant behavioral details: the exact JSON return format, the sort order (count descending), and that it takes no arguments. No contradiction with annotations.

  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?

  Every sentence earns its place: purpose, return shape, sort order, usage example, and a clear don't-use-when rule. The structure front-loads the core behavior and uses compact examples instead of verbose prose.

  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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns, in what order, when to call it, and when to choose a sibling instead. Nothing essential is missing.

  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?

  There are zero parameters, so the schema and context signals already make parameter usage trivial. The description still explicitly confirms invocation with no args, aligning with the baseline for param-free tools.

  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?

  States a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('every effect category in the Hyperiux Vault catalog'), and the key detail of per-category effect counts. The differentiation from siblings is explicit by focusing on categories as distinct from effects and individual effect retrieval.

  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?

  Provides explicit guidance: use before hyperiux_list_effects with a category filter to confirm slugs and sizes, and explicitly says not to use it when the slug is already known and effects are wanted. It names the exact alternative tool and the condition under which to switch.

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

• hyperiux_list_effectsA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that the listing does NOT include Pro vs Free status and warns agents not to assume installability. It also documents the exact JSON return shape since no output schema exists.

  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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, key limitation, args, return shape, examples, and when-not-to-use. Every sentence adds information an agent needs, and the critical caveat about Pro vs Free is front-loaded.

  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 there is no output schema, the description fully covers the return format including pagination fields like total, count, offset, has_more, and next_offset. It also handles the main ambiguity (tier status) and guides the agent to sibling tools for missing information, making it complete 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by pairing natural-language intents with parameter usage ('What cursor effects are available?' -> category='cursor'), which helps an agent translate user requests into correct arguments. It also summarizes defaults, though most details are already in the 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 states a specific verb ('browse or search') and a clear resource ('Hyperiux Vault catalog of React/Next.js interaction effects'), and it enumerates representative effect types. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly directing detail/tier lookups to hyperiux_get_effect and category discovery to hyperiux_list_categories.

  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 gives concrete natural-language usage examples, explains when to use query vs category, and explicitly says 'Don't use when: you need one effect's full description/props/tier - use hyperiux_get_effect instead.' This is explicit routing with alternatives and conditions.

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