Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_profilesC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search for profiles' gives no information about traits like read-only vs. destructive, authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or response format. It lacks any context beyond the basic action, making it inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action and resource without any waste. Every word ('Search for profiles') directly contributes to the purpose, making it efficient and well-structured for its minimal content.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'profiles' entail, how results are returned, or any behavioral aspects like search scope or limitations. For a search tool with no structured data support, more context is needed to guide effective use.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable since there are none to explain. It avoids redundancy and appropriately handles the lack of parameters, though it could briefly note the absence of filters or criteria.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Search for profiles' states a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('profiles'), establishing the basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what profiles are (e.g., user profiles, skill profiles) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_prompts' or 'list_skills', leaving ambiguity about scope. It avoids tautology by not merely restating the name, but remains vague.

  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 does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and fails to reference sibling tools such as 'search_prompts' for similar search operations. Usage is implied only by the verb 'Search', but without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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

• get_tool_statsC
  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 full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or whether it's read-only/destructive. It adds minimal context beyond the obvious purpose.

  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 with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'statistics' includes, how results are structured, or any operational constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

  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 no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add param semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, aligning with the baseline for zero-param tools.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Get statistics about available tools' clearly states the action (get) and resource (statistics about tools), but it's vague about what 'statistics' entails and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_prompt_stats' or 'list_skills'. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.

  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 'get_prompt_stats' or 'list_skills'. The description implies usage for statistical queries but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios with sibling tools.

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

• load_skillsC
  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 action ('load and combine') but doesn't describe key traits: whether this is a read-only or mutating operation (e.g., modifies agent state), any side effects (e.g., overwrites existing skills), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that likely alters an agent's knowledge base.

  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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('load and combine'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning a top score for conciseness.

  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 complexity of loading and combining skills (likely a mutating operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, permissions), return values, or error cases. For a tool that modifies an agent's state, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

  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 both parameters ('skill_ids' as an array of IDs and 'agent_name' as optional). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how skills are combined or what happens if 'agent_name' is omitted. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb 'load and combine' and the resource 'multiple skills', specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_skills' (which lists rather than loads) and 'search_profiles' (which searches profiles, not skills). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'load and combine' entails operationally (e.g., merging knowledge vs. sequential loading), keeping it from a perfect 5.

  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 prerequisites (e.g., whether skills must exist or be accessible), exclusions (e.g., not for single skills), or comparisons to siblings like 'list_skills' (for viewing available skills). This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage cues.

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

• search_promptsC
  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 full burden but only states the basic function without behavioral details. It lacks information on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format, which are critical for a search operation.

  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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like result format, error handling, or limitations, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

  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 the 'query' parameter. The description adds minimal value by implying keywords or tags as search criteria, but doesn't elaborate on syntax or format beyond what the schema provides.

  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 ('search') and resource ('prompts') with search criteria ('by keyword or tag'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_profiles' or 'list_skills', which would require a more precise scope definition.

  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 prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'search_profiles' or 'list_skills', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

• get_prompt_statsB
  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 but only states the action without details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or side effects. It doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation or has other behavioral traits, making it insufficient for informed use.

  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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or structural fluff. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it highly concise and well-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?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns statistical data. It doesn't explain what statistics are provided, the format of the response, or any prerequisites, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's full context.

  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 fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately avoids redundancy, earning a high baseline score for this context.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('statistics about available prompts'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_prompts' or 'get_tool_stats', which prevents a perfect score.

  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_prompts' or 'get_tool_stats'. It lacks context about whether this is for aggregated data, metadata, or other specific use cases, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.

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

• list_skillsB
  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 states it's a listing operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention any constraints like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what happens if no skills are found. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

  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 that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It clearly communicates the action, resource, and included details, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. For a simple listing tool, this is the minimum viable level, but it could benefit from more context on when and how to use it effectively.

  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%, with the single parameter 'tags' documented as optional for filtering by tags like 'clean-code' or 'testing'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as tag format or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 verb ('List') and resource ('all available development skills'), specifying what information is included ('with descriptions and IDs'). It distinguishes this from siblings like 'load_skills' (which likely loads rather than lists) and 'search_profiles' (which focuses on profiles rather than skills). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_prompt_stats' or 'get_tool_stats', which are about different resources.

  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 when to prefer 'list_skills' over 'load_skills' (which might load specific skills) or 'search_profiles' (which might include skill-related searches). There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions for usage.

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