Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_theme_minifiguresC
  2.8/5.0
  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 mentions 'with prices', implying some data output, but doesn't describe response format, pagination, error handling, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding tool behavior.

  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?

  The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the extensive list of themes (over 40 items) adds bulk without clear necessity, reducing efficiency. It could be more concise by summarizing or referencing the schema for theme details, making it somewhat verbose for its informational value.

  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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters. It lacks details on behavioral traits, response format, and usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to fully understand the tool's operation and integration with siblings.

  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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing theme examples, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format details or usage tips). 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 tool's purpose: 'List LEGO minifigures for a theme with prices.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('LEGO minifigures'), and scope ('for a theme with prices'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_minifigures' or 'lookup_minifigure' beyond listing themes, so it doesn't reach the highest 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_minifigures' or 'lookup_minifigure'. It only lists themes without explaining context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name and parameters alone.

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

• identify_minifigureB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the catalog size (18,000+) and matching behavior ('best matches'), but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or error handling. For a search/identification tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences earn their place by explaining functionality and providing concrete examples, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidelines from core description.

  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 tool's complexity (search/identification across large catalog) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'best matches' means, how results are returned, pagination, error cases, or performance characteristics. The description should provide more operational context for effective use.

  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 good documentation for both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the parameter usage through examples ('colors, accessories, theme, character clues'), but doesn't provide additional semantic context like format constraints or interaction effects between parameters.

  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 purpose with specific verbs ('identify', 'get the best matches') and resources ('LEGO minifigure', '18,000+ minifig catalog'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on identification from textual descriptions rather than lookup by ID (lookup_minifigure) or theme filtering (get_theme_minifigures).

  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 through examples ('e.g. green ninja with golden swords') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_minifigures or get_theme_minifigures. It provides context for input format but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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

• lookup_minifigureA
  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 full burden. It mentions the return data types ('detailed price data, image URL, and theme') but lacks critical behavioral details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

  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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and input methods, the second specifies the return data. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, and key 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?

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return data types but lacks sufficient behavioral context for a lookup tool. It doesn't explain response format details, error cases, or operational constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance despite the simple single parameter.

  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 single parameter's type, constraints, and purpose. The description adds minimal value by restating that the query can be 'BrickLink ID or minifigure name' but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 ('Look up') and resource ('a specific LEGO minifigure'), specifies the lookup methods ('by BrickLink ID or exact name'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on individual lookup rather than theme-based listing (get_theme_minifigures), identification (identify_minifigure), or broader search (search_minifigures).

  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 individual minifigure lookup by ID or exact name, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_minifigures (which might handle partial names) or identify_minifigure (which might use different identification methods). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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

• search_minifiguresA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: fuzzy matching, optional theme filtering, returns top 10 matches with prices. However, it doesn't mention important details like pagination, error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements that would be valuable for an agent.

  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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second provides crucial usage context. No wasted words, well-structured and 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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details about the return format beyond 'top 10 matches with prices' - no information about data structure, error handling, or system 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'fuzzy search' which clarifies the query behavior, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the 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?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('fuzzy search', 'returns') and resource ('LEGO minifigures'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for when you 'only know part of the name' rather than exact identification or theme-specific listing.

  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 clear context for when to use this tool ('when you only know part of the name'), which implicitly differentiates it from tools like 'identify_minifigure' or 'lookup_minifigure' that likely require more precise information. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives.

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