Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ask-qwenB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions 'execution modes' and 'large context windows' but lacks critical details: no information on rate limits, authentication needs, response format, error handling, or whether queries are logged/stored. For a complex AI query tool with 7 parameters, this is a significant gap.

  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 appropriately concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes the main function and key features, the second mentions model and execution mode support. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

  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?

  For a complex AI query tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., text response, structured data), error conditions, or important behavioral constraints. The schema covers parameters well, but the overall context for proper tool invocation is insufficient.

  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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning '@file syntax' and 'various models' but not providing additional context about parameter interactions or advanced usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

  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 states the tool's purpose: 'Query Qwen AI with support for file analysis (@file syntax), codebase exploration, and large context windows.' It specifies the verb ('Query') and resource ('Qwen AI') with additional capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'Help' or 'ping' beyond the AI query focus.

  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 usage context through features like file analysis and codebase exploration, suggesting it's for AI-assisted development tasks. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'Help' for server info, 'ping' for connectivity), and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• HelpB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Display' suggests a read-only operation that shows information, but it doesn't specify whether this triggers any side effects (like logging usage), whether authentication is needed, if there are rate limits, or what happens if the CLI isn't properly configured. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context for a tool that interacts with system components.

  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 perfectly concise at just four words: 'Display Qwen CLI help information.' Every word earns its place - 'Display' specifies the action, 'Qwen CLI' identifies the system, and 'help information' defines the resource. There's zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration for such a straightforward 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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does at a basic level but doesn't provide enough context about what 'help information' includes, how it's presented, or what users should expect. For a help tool that might be crucial for onboarding or troubleshooting, more detail about the nature and format of the help would be beneficial.

  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 schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema fully covers the parameter situation.

  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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Display') and resource ('Qwen CLI help information'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'ask-qwen' (which likely queries the AI) and 'ping' (which likely checks connectivity) by focusing on help documentation display. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what format the help information appears in or whether it's general vs. specific help.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention whether this should be used for general CLI overview, command-specific help, troubleshooting, or as a first step for new users. With siblings like 'ask-qwen' that might provide interactive assistance, there's no differentiation about when help display is preferable to asking the AI directly.

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

• pingA
  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 discloses the basic behavior ('echo a message') and purpose ('test the connection'), which covers the core functionality. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, error conditions, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool that might involve network or system interactions.

  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, efficient sentence: 'Echo a message to test the connection'. It is front-loaded with the core action and purpose, with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

  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?

  Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but doesn't cover behavioral nuances or output details. For a simple echo tool, this might suffice, but it lacks depth for more informed usage.

  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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'prompt' documented as 'Message to echo' and a default value 'Pong!'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 states the tool's purpose: 'Echo a message to test the connection'. It specifies the verb ('echo') and resource ('message') with the explicit goal of connection testing. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ask-qwen' or 'Help', which appear to serve different purposes.

  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 usage context ('to test the connection'), suggesting this tool is for diagnostic or connectivity verification purposes. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'ask-qwen' or 'Help', nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites.

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