Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_warp_drive_guideA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral responsibility. It uses the verb 'Search', implying a read-only operation, and the examples clarify the type of content returned. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, how results are returned, or any limitations, leaving some transparency gaps.

  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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence followed by a bulleted list of examples. It is front-loaded and reasonably concise, though the list is somewhat long (7 examples) and could be trimmed without losing meaning.

  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?

  The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers purpose and usage adequately. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not explain what the search returns (e.g., list of guides, titles, snippets), which is a gap for the agent to set expectations.

  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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'topic' parameter with examples, meeting the baseline. The description adds value by showing the kinds of 'how do I' questions users might ask, which helps the agent infer appropriate topic values beyond the schema's examples.

  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 'Search WarpDrive guides, tutorials, and cookbook recipes' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_warp_drive_package and get_warp_drive_overview by focusing on guides/tutorials/cookbook content, making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 explicitly says 'Use this for "how do I..." questions' and provides a list of concrete examples, giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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

• get_warp_drive_overviewA
  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 the full burden. The description implies a read-only informational query but does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or return format. For a simple overview tool this is adequate but not deeply transparent.

  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 opens with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a concise bullet list of use cases. Every element adds value and the structure is scannable and front-loaded.

  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 zero-parameter overview tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it does and when to use it. It could mention the expected return format for full completeness, but the use case list makes the tool's behavior clear.

  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, so the baseline per rubric is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none, and the empty schema already reflects this.

  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 explicitly states the tool's action: 'Get a high-level overview of all WarpDrive packages and what they do.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_warp_drive_docs and get_warp_drive_package.

  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 'Use this when' list provides explicit scenarios (e.g., starting a new project, understanding package structure, user asks 'what is WarpDrive'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or directly reference alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5 but provides clear context.

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

• get_warp_drive_packageA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's primary behavior (retrieving complete documentation) and implies a safe read-only operation. For a simple retrieval tool with no side effects, this is sufficient, though it does not elaborate on error handling 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is concise and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then provides a clear bulleted list of example package names. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundant or misleading content.

  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?

  For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, and the schema covers the parameter. The examples make the expected input clear, so no further context is needed for the agent to select and invoke this tool 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?

  The input schema already has 100% coverage of the single parameter 'packageName', including examples. The description only repeats similar examples without adding new meaning or constraints, so it adds marginal value beyond 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 the tool's function: 'Get complete documentation for a specific WarpDrive or EmberData package.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('complete documentation for a specific package'), and the examples and scope distinguish it from sibling tools like search or overview.

  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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need full details about a specific package like:' followed by a list of examples, which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or provide exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

• search_warp_drive_docsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly establishes a read-only search behavior with no side effects, and covers scope and expected use. It does not detail the exact result format (snippets vs. full sections), but the schema's maxResults description partially addresses this limitation.

  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 opens with a concise summary, then uses a well-structured bullet list of use cases, and closes with a practical directive. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

  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?

  For a search tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers purpose, specific use cases, and the timing rule, making it fully usable without additional context from sibling tools.

  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%, with both query and maxResults having detailed descriptions and examples. The description adds little beyond the schema, so 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.

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly identifies the tool as a documentation search for WarpDrive and EmberData, listing specific packages and APIs. It is distinct from the sibling get_* tools by emphasizing targeted search over fetching a specific guide or package.

  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?

  It explicitly enumerates when to use the tool (API lookups, migration paths, package usage, framework integration) and adds a strong directive to always use it before writing code. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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

• check_warp_drive_deprecationsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only lookup operation ('Check if...') and provides additional context about common deprecations and valid input examples. It doesn't mention side effects or permissions, but the tool's nature makes these unnecessary.

  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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a 'Use this when' section, and a 'Common deprecations' list. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the content is front-loaded with the most important information.

  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 and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and examples effectively. It doesn't specify the return format, but the straightforward nature of the tool makes that less critical. It also differentiates well from siblings.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of valid apiName values (e.g., 'StableRecordIdentifier', '@ember-data/request') and listing common deprecations, which helps the agent understand what to pass.

  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's function: 'Check if a WarpDrive or EmberData API is deprecated and find its replacement.' This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like search_warp_drive_docs by focusing on deprecation status rather than general documentation.

  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 an explicit 'Use this when' list covering legacy code, deprecation warnings, strikethrough symbols, and migrations. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools 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.