Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_forum_post_messagesC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It only says 'Get messages', implying read-only but no details on auth, rate limits, error behavior, or what happens if thread_id is invalid. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

  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?

  Description is very short (one sentence) and front-loaded. However, it lacks critical details, making it under-specified rather than concise. It earns its place but is insufficient.

  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?

  No output schema and no annotations. Tool returns a list of messages, but description doesn't mention sorting, pagination behavior, or response structure. Incomplete for a retrieval tool.

  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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents them. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 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?

  Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'messages from a forum post thread', making the tool's purpose obvious. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_forum_posts (which lists threads) and reply_to_forum_post (which adds). However, it could be more specific about scope (e.g., pagination).

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, when to use get_forum_post_messages vs list_forum_posts is implied by name but not explicitly stated. No when-not or context clues.

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

• list_forum_tagsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided. Description implies read-only but lacks details on behavior like rate limits, scope of tags, or return format.

  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?

  Single sentence, very concise and front-loaded. Appropriate for a simple list tool.

  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 list operation with one parameter and no output schema, description is adequate but lacks details on return format or any constraints.

  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?

  One parameter channel_id with schema description 'ID of the forum channel'. Description adds no further meaning beyond schema, which has 100% coverage.

  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 'list', resource 'tags', and context 'Discord forum channel'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_forum_post.

  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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites or context for use.

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

• create_forum_postB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but only provides basic purpose. It omits details like required permissions, rate limits, or content formatting.

  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, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage context without being verbose.

  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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description leaves gaps in behavioral and usage guidance. While parameter semantics are covered, the overall context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool is incomplete.

  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%, and schema descriptions adequately explain each parameter. The description adds no additional information beyond what the schema provides.

  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 'Create', resource 'post (thread)', and context 'in a Discord forum channel'. It distinguishes from siblings like edit_forum_post and reply_to_forum_post.

  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?

  No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies use for creating new threads versus replying or editing, but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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

• edit_forum_postB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions, reversibility, or effects on other fields (e.g., does editing title reset timestamps?).

  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 sentence with no fluff. Essential 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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, leaving gaps.

  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%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema's 'description' fields provide (e.g., 'New title' is same as schema). Baseline 3 applies.

  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 'Edit' and the specific resource 'title of an existing forum post (thread)', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_forum_post (creation) and reply_to_forum_post (adding a message).

  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 (e.g., when to edit title vs. reply to change content). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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

• list_forum_postsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions 'active threads', not other behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, or output format.

  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 sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no wasted words.

  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 one-parameter list tool, it conveys core purpose but lacks details on pagination, output structure, or what 'active' means, leaving some ambiguity.

  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 covers the single parameter fully, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema's property description already provides.

  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 ('List') and resource ('active threads (posts) in a Discord forum channel'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on creation, editing, or retrieving messages.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_forum_post_messages' or 'list_forum_tags', but the sibling names make the distinction fairly obvious.

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

• reply_to_forum_postA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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. It states it sends a reply, implying a write operation, but does not mention any side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. More transparency is needed for a mutation tool.

  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 action and target. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

  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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks mention of what the tool returns upon success (e.g., confirmation or message object). Given the context, adding a brief note about the result would improve completeness.

  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% with basic descriptions for both parameters. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. While the schema is adequate, the description could elaborate on allowed formats or constraints for 'content' or 'thread_id'.

  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 ('Send a message (reply)') and the resource ('existing forum post thread'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'create_forum_post' (new thread) and 'edit_forum_post' (editing existing), so the agent knows exactly what this tool does.

  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 when you have an existing thread to reply to, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools like 'get_forum_post_messages' and 'list_forum_posts', explicit guidance on when to reply versus read would improve clarity.

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