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 the tool retrieves details but doesn't specify what details are included, whether it's a read-only operation, potential error conditions, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

  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's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand 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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns detailed paper information. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, potential response formats, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond the basic 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single required parameter 'paper_id' with examples. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or usage tips, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

  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 details') and resource ('a specific paper'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_paper_content' or 'search_papers', which might have overlapping or related functionality.

  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 fetch content vs. details) or 'search_papers' (which might handle broader queries), leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

  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 access and processing, but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., if the PDF is unavailable), performance (e.g., time to download/extract), or side effects (e.g., caching). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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, efficient sentence: 'Get the full text content of a paper by downloading and extracting text from its PDF.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's function.

  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 annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., raw text, structured content), potential errors, or dependencies (e.g., internet access). For a tool with no structured data to rely on, more contextual information is needed to ensure proper usage.

  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 an 'arXiv paper ID (e.g., 2104.13478 or cs/0001001).' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

  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') and resource ('full text content of a paper'), and the method ('downloading and extracting text from its PDF') adds useful detail. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_paper' (which might return metadata rather than content), so it falls short of 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools (e.g., 'get_paper' for metadata, 'search_papers' for finding papers) or specify contexts where this tool is preferred. Without such information, users might struggle to choose between tools, resulting in a low score.

  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 papers by category but doesn't describe what the search returns (metadata, abstracts, full content?), pagination behavior beyond the parameters, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a search tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary preamble.

  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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what results look like (paper metadata, abstracts, IDs?), how results are structured, or provide context about the arXiv category system. The agent would need to infer or guess about the output format and behavioral characteristics.

  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 with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain category format examples beyond what's in the schema, or provide context about typical usage patterns for the parameters.

  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'), and specifies the scope ('in a specific arXiv category'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_papers' - both appear to search papers, so the distinction isn't articulated.

  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 mentions the category constraint but doesn't explain if this is the only way to search by category or when other search approaches might be more appropriate.

  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. It states it's a search operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, pagination details beyond parameters, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of papers with metadata). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 9 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 front-loads the core purpose ('Search for papers on arXiv') and adds a brief qualifier ('by various criteria'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, 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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return values, behavioral constraints like rate limits, or how to interpret results. For a search tool with multiple siblings, 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.

  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 fully documents all 9 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'various criteria', which aligns with the schema but doesn't compensate for any gaps (none exist here). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 action ('Search for papers') and resource ('on arXiv'), specifying the domain. It mentions 'by various criteria' which hints at flexibility, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_by_category', which might handle more specific filtering.

  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 like 'search_by_category' or 'get_paper'. The description lacks context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on parameter names alone.

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