Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_skillsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are 'ranked by relevance' and include 'complete implementation guides, code examples, and best practices' which adds behavioral context beyond basic search. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or pagination behavior that would be important for a search tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately front-loaded with core functionality but contains some redundant phrasing ('proven solutions' vs 'battle-tested patterns'). Sentences like 'Essential for leveraging battle-tested patterns...' and 'Perfect for finding reusable workflows...' could be more concise while maintaining value. The structure flows logically but could be tighter.

  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 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, it lacks details about the return format structure, error handling, or performance characteristics that would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

  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 fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'returns highly relevant skills' which aligns with the task_description parameter but doesn't provide extra guidance on parameter usage or interactions.

  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 as searching and discovering Claude Agent Skills with specific outputs (implementation guides, code examples, best practices). It distinguishes from 'list_skills' by emphasizing search functionality and from 'read_skill_document' by returning multiple ranked results rather than reading a single document. However, it doesn't explicitly name these siblings for full differentiation.

  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 for when to use the tool ('starting a new task, facing a coding challenge, or need specialized techniques') and includes examples of appropriate use cases. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, but the context strongly implies this is for discovery/search rather than listing or reading specific documents.

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

• read_skill_documentA
  4.1/5.0
  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 describes pattern matching capabilities and the base64 encoding option for images, which are useful behavioral details. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no documents match the pattern.

  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 efficiently structured with two sentences that each serve clear purposes: the first states the core function, the second provides usage context and behavioral details. There's no wasted language, and important information is front-loaded.

  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 tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more information about return formats (beyond the base64 mention), error handling, or performance characteristics.

  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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about what types of documents can be retrieved (scripts, references, assets) and mentions pattern matching, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

  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 specific action ('Retrieve specific documents') and resources ('scripts, references, assets') from a skill. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_skills' and 'search_skills' by focusing on accessing document content rather than listing or searching skills themselves.

  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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this after searching for skills to access additional resources') and includes examples of what types of resources it handles (Python scripts, data files, reference materials, images). It clearly positions this as a follow-up to search operations.

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

• list_skillsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Returns') and specifies the scope ('complete inventory of all loaded skills'). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements that might be relevant for a complete behavioral understanding.

  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 structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and output format, the second provides usage guidance and sibling differentiation. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

  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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what the tool does and when to use it. The main gap is the lack of information about the return format structure, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. However, given the tool's simplicity, the description is largely complete.

  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?

  With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately acknowledges this by not discussing parameters at all, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage guidelines. This is efficient and avoids redundancy.

  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 specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('complete inventory of all loaded skills'), listing the exact data fields included (names, descriptions, sources, document counts). It explicitly distinguishes this from its sibling 'search_skills' by stating this is for exploration/debugging rather than task-specific relevance.

  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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for exploration or debugging to see what skills are available') and when not to use it, naming the alternative tool 'search_skills' for finding relevant skills for specific tasks. This gives clear context for tool selection.

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