Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_paperC
  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 it 'Get details' but doesn't specify what details are returned (e.g., metadata, abstract, authors), whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling for invalid IDs, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond basic 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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Get details'), making it easy to parse. There's zero waste, and every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource and key input.

  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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'details' include, which is crucial since there's no output schema to define the return values. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context to be fully helpful for an AI agent.

  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 the parameter 'paper_id' fully documented in the schema as 'arXiv paper ID (e.g., 2104.13478 or cs/0001001)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

  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 ('Get details') and resource ('specific paper'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies retrieval by arXiv ID, which distinguishes it from general search tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_paper_content, which might retrieve different aspects of papers.

  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 sibling tools like get_paper_content (which might retrieve content vs. metadata), search_by_category, or search_papers (which handle broader queries). There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing a specific paper ID rather than searching by other criteria.

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

• get_paper_contentC
  2.9/5.0
  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 'downloading and extracting text from its PDF', which implies network operations and processing, but fails to disclose critical traits such as potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or performance characteristics (e.g., time to download/process). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and method without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get the full text content'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by adding value, resulting in an optimal balance of brevity and informativeness.

  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 (involving PDF download and text extraction) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return value looks like (e.g., plain text, structured data), potential errors, or operational constraints. For a tool with no structured data to supplement it, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

  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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'paper_id' parameter well-documented as 'arXiv paper ID (e.g., 2104.13478 or cs/0001001)'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this schema, as it does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

  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: 'Get the full text content of a paper by downloading and extracting text from its PDF.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('full text content of a paper'), and method ('downloading and extracting text from its PDF'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_paper' (which might return metadata instead of content), so it misses full sibling differentiation.

  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 sibling tools such as 'get_paper', 'search_by_category', or 'search_papers', nor does it specify contexts or exclusions for usage. This lack of comparative guidance limits the agent's ability to select the correct tool in a multi-tool environment.

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

• search_by_categoryC
  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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., paper metadata, abstracts), whether it's paginated (implied by 'start' parameter but not explained), rate limits, or authentication requirements. This is inadequate for a search tool with multiple parameters.

  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 states the core function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information.

  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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or provide context about arXiv categories. The agent would need to rely heavily on the input schema alone.

  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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain category hierarchy or result format). 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 ('Search for') and resource ('papers in a specific arXiv category'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'search_papers', which appears to be a similar search function but without the category specificity mentioned.

  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_papers' or 'get_paper'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases beyond the basic function, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• search_papersC
  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 but offers minimal information. It mentions searching 'by various criteria' but doesn't describe what happens when multiple criteria are combined, whether results are paginated, what format results come in, or any rate limits or authentication requirements for arXiv API access.

  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 at just 7 words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential information without unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

  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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, whether there are limitations beyond the documented max_results parameter, or how this differs from sibling search 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?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'various criteria,' which is already evident from the parameter names. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

  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 for papers') and resource ('on arXiv'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'search_by_category' which appears to offer more targeted searching, missing an opportunity for clear differentiation.

  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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search_by_category' available, there's no indication of when this general search is preferable versus more specialized searches, leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.

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