Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_griptape_nodesB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response behavior. Only states the action without behavioral traits.

  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?

  Description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and organized into short paragraphs. No unnecessary sentences, but args list could be integrated more succinctly.

  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 no output schema details provided and low schema coverage, description lacks completeness. Does not mention pagination, sorting, or error handling. Sibling tools are present but not referenced for differentiation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%, but description lists args with example values for query. No detailed semantics like allowed values for category or expected input format. Minimal compensation for missing 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?

  Description clearly states verb 'Search' and resource 'Griptape Nodes', and specifies search dimensions (name, description, or category). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_node_details and 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 Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Description mentions context (visual workflow builder) and examples for query, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_categories or search_docs. Guidance is implied but not explicit.

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

• get_code_examplesA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden but only states it finds code snippets. It does not disclose behavioral traits like output format, result limits, or permissions. The docstring provides example values but not behavioral context.

  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 concise with 4 sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The docstring for the parameter is clearly separated. No wasted words, though could be slightly more structured.

  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?

  Given the tool has one required parameter and an output schema (indicating return values are defined), the description is sufficiently complete for a simple search tool. It covers the core functionality and provides an example.

  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?

  Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates with a clear docstring for the 'topic' parameter, including example values. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema type definition.

  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 tool searches for code examples related to a topic, using a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('code examples'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_docs' by focusing on code snippets.

  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 for finding working examples of Griptape patterns but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not specify when not to use this tool versus other search tools.

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

• get_pageA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided; description does not explicitly state read-only behavior or any side effects, though the action is clearly a retrieval. Missing disclosure on authentication or rate limits.

  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?

  Concise two-sentence summary plus an Args section; no wasted words. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but overall efficient.

  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?

  Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the tool's core function well. Lacks guidance on edge cases or comparison with search_docs for non-exact matches, but adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 0% schema coverage, the description fully documents the single parameter, explaining both acceptable formats (full URL or partial title) and providing concrete examples, exceeding the schema's bare definition.

  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 retrieves full page content including code examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_code_examples which may focus solely on code. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from search_docs.

  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?

  Provides instructions on how to use the parameter (URL or partial title) with examples, but lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings like search_docs or get_code_examples.

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

• search_docsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It describes the search behavior and return format but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or permissions needed. It implies a read operation but does not state it explicitly. Lacks some transparency.

  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 concise with two introductory sentences followed by a short Args list. Every sentence adds value—no fluff, no repetition of schema. The use of examples in parameters enhances clarity without excessive verbosity.

  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?

  Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the search scope, parameter usage, and result content adequately. However, it could explicitly state that it is read-only or mention pagination limits to be fully complete. Still, it is mostly sufficient for a search tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'query' with concrete examples ('RAG pipeline', 'Agent memory', 'image node') and 'source' with its allowed values ('framework', 'nodes', 'all'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool performs full-text search across Griptape documentation, listing the specific data sources (framework and nodes docs) and what it returns (title, URL, snippet). This differentiates it from siblings like 'get_page' or 'get_code_examples' by specifying the scope.

  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 does not provide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the source parameter filtering but does not guide the agent on when to choose this over sibling tools like 'search_griptape_nodes' or 'list_categories'. No explicit 'when not to use' or alternative references.

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

• get_node_detailsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what is returned but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or limitations. For a read operation retrieving documentation, the disclosure is adequate but minimal.

  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 sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section provides structured parameter detail. It is not overly verbose, though some redundancy exists with the schema.

  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 the tool has one parameter, no enums, and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return content and provides parameter guidance, leaving no obvious gaps for the agent.

  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?

  Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by providing examples (e.g. 'Load Image', 'Create Agent') and clarifying the expected format (human-readable name). This adds meaning beyond the schema's minimal title.

  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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full documentation for a specific Griptape Node'. It specifies what is returned (complete description, configuration, inputs/outputs, code examples), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_code_examples' which only returns code examples.

  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 implicitly tells when to use: when full documentation is needed. It does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives, but the context of returning comprehensive docs versus just code examples provides sufficient guidance.

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

• list_categoriesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description adds value by disclosing that the output includes counts of pages/nodes per section. This goes beyond a simple listing statement, though it lacks details on potential pagination or performance aspects.

  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 two sentences, efficiently conveying purpose and behavioral context without waste. Information is front-loaded with the main action and immediate elaboration.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what it lists and the count inclusion. Minor gaps in specifying read-only nature or scope do not significantly detract.

  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?

  No parameters exist, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description correctly has no need to explain parameters, earning a baseline score for a zero-parameter tool.

  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 tool lists Griptape Framework sections and Node categories, specifying it includes counts of pages/nodes per area. This distinguishes it from siblings that retrieve details or perform searches.

  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 as a precursor to searching ('so you know what to search for') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or provide exclusions for when not to use it.

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