Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• add_to_dictionaryB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that entries are registered but does not mention whether duplicates are allowed, if updates occur, or what side effects happen. Lacks detail on mutation behavior.

  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 long, concise, and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence provides unique value without redundant information.

  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 simple addition tool with two required parameters, the description is adequate but lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. Given no output schema, more detail would be beneficial.

  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%, providing detailed parameter explanations including examples for comma-separated values. The tool description adds only minor reinforcement about abbreviations and extensions, so it does not significantly augment 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 clearly states that the tool registers a pair of English word and katakana reading into a custom dictionary. It specifies what can be registered (words, abbreviations, extensions) and that multiple entries are allowed via comma separation. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_dictionary and remove_from_dictionary.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_dictionary or remove_from_dictionary. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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

• remove_from_dictionaryA
  3.8/5.0
  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 discloses the deletion behavior and comma-separated input. However, it does not mention what happens if the word does not exist, or if there are any irreversible side effects. The destructive nature is implied but not fully detailed.

  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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb (削除します/delete). No unnecessary words or redundancy.

  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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is largely complete. It explains the action and input format. It could mention whether deletion is permanent or if there is a confirmation step, but overall adequate for the agent to invoke 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?

  Schema coverage is 100% (single parameter with description). The description adds the comma separation detail but does not provide significant meaning beyond the schema. With high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 action (削除する/delete) and the resource (カスタム辞書/custom dictionary). It also specifies that multiple entries can be deleted with comma separation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_to_dictionary (adds) and list_dictionary (lists).

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the function is implied by the name and sibling tools: use for deletion, not for adding or listing. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• list_dictionaryA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It correctly conveys a read operation without side effects. Does not elaborate on authentication, scope, or potential empty results. Sufficient for a simple tool but lacks depth.

  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?

  Single Japanese sentence that is concise and immediately understandable. No extraneous words. Front-loaded with purpose.

  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?

  No output schema exists, but description does not specify return format or structure. With siblings suggesting a dictionary context, the description is adequate but could benefit from mentioning that it returns a list or what each entry contains.

  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?

  Tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by explaining the output scope (all entries, English words and readings), which is more informative than the empty schema alone. Appropriate 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?

  Description clearly states the action (listing) and resource (English words and readings from custom dictionary). It differentiates from siblings add_to_dictionary, remove_from_dictionary, and say by describing a read-only retrieval. No ambiguity.

  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?

  Usage context is implied: when you need to view dictionary contents. However, no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, nor conditions like requiring dictionary population first. Adequate but not explicit.

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

• sayA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Explica síntesis de voz, reproducción en WSL, conversión de inglés a katakana, y mensajes de retorno. Sin anotaciones, la descripción es suficiente.

  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?

  Información concisa con estructura clara: propósito, cuándo usarlo, comportamiento, argumentos y retorno. Sin redundancias.

  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?

  Cubre todos los aspectos necesarios para un tool simple: propósito, uso, parámetros, comportamiento y resultado.

  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?

  El parámetro 'text' se describe claramente en la sección Args: texto a leer, admite japonés e inglés. Añade valor más allá del esquema.

  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?

  Descripción clara: indica que lee texto en una voz de mascota linda, y distingue de herramientas hermanas (diccionarios).

  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?

  Sugiere usarlo para notificar usuarios de forma divertida, pero no excluye alternativas ni menciona cuándo no usarlo.

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