Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_answerC
  2.9/5.0
  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 states the tool returns 'the best matching answer with source URL and related articles', which gives some output context, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or how 'best matching' is determined. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and output. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the output details more seamlessly.

  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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and output format but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and differentiation from siblings. With no output schema, it should ideally explain return values more thoroughly, though it does mention 'source URL and related articles'.

  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 'question' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples of effective questions or formatting tips). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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: 'Get a direct answer to a question about MCP servers, local AI, or AI automation from ASTGL's knowledge base.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('direct answer'), and scope ('about MCP servers, local AI, or AI automation'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_topics' or 'search_articles' beyond mentioning it returns 'the best matching answer'.

  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 like 'list_topics' or 'search_articles'. It mentions the tool returns 'the best matching answer with source URL and related articles', but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferable over other search or listing tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

• search_articlesC
  2.9/5.0
  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 that the tool returns 'relevant article sections with source URLs for citation', which gives some context about output format. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or how relevance is determined.

  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 with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output. It's front-loaded with the main functionality. However, the first sentence could be slightly more streamlined by integrating the topic scope more smoothly.

  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 search tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains what the tool searches and what it returns, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation or how results are ranked. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the search scope but doesn't provide additional context about how the 'query' parameter should be formulated or how 'limit' affects results beyond what the schema already states.

  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: searching ASTGL articles about specific topics (MCP servers, local AI, AI automation) and returning relevant sections with source URLs. It specifies the verb 'Search' and resource 'ASTGL articles', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_answer' or 'list_topics'.

  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?

  No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'get_answer' or 'list_topics'. The description mentions the search scope (MCP servers, local AI, AI automation) but doesn't indicate when this tool is preferred over alternatives or any prerequisites for its use.

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

• list_topicsB
  3/5.0
  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. It mentions what data is returned but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

  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 with two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and output format. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from output details.

  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?

  Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description should provide more complete context about behavioral aspects. While it adequately describes what the tool does, it lacks information about return format details, error handling, performance characteristics, or limitations. For a tool with minimal structured data, the description doesn't compensate sufficiently.

  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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the empty parameter set. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is correct for a parameterless tool. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

  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 action ('List all topics') and resource ('ASTGL knowledge base'), with specific details about what information is shown (article titles, descriptions, URLs, section headings). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_answer' and 'search_articles' by focusing on comprehensive topic listing rather than specific answers or filtered searches. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings in the text itself.

  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 like 'search_articles' or 'get_answer'. It doesn't mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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