Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_postsC
  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 full burden. It states 'retrieves' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's paginated, sorted, filtered, or has rate limits. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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 sentence 'Retrieves all posts', which is appropriately concise and front-loaded. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

  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 (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'posts' are, the return format, or any constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively beyond basic inference.

  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 with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add param details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for not misleading or omitting necessary param semantics.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

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

  The description 'Retrieves all posts' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (posts), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_weather' which might also retrieve data. It's not tautological but lacks specificity about what 'all posts' means.

  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 'add_post' or 'delete_post'. The description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

• add_postC
  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 'Adds' a post, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects (e.g., if it triggers notifications), rate limits, or response format. 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 with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse 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?

  For a write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after adding the post (e.g., success response, error handling, or returned data), nor does it address behavioral aspects like authentication needs or side effects, leaving key contextual 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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'content' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as content constraints or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles 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 action ('Adds') and resource ('a simple text post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_posts' or 'delete_post' beyond the basic verb difference, missing explicit comparison.

  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 'delete_post' or 'get_posts'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as authentication or post-creation workflows, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.

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

• delete_postC
  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 deletes a post, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical details such as whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated data. 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 extremely concise with a single, direct sentence that front-loads the core action ('Deletes a post by ID'). There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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 (a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, side effects), usage context, and expected outcomes, which are crucial for an AI agent to invoke this tool correctly and safely.

  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 description mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the single parameter 'id' in the input schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the schema fully documents the parameter), the description adds minimal value beyond restating what's already in the schema. This meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.

  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 ('Deletes') and the resource ('a post by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'add_post' or 'get_posts' beyond the obvious verb difference, missing an opportunity to clarify its specific role in the CRUD operations context.

  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 'add_post' or 'get_posts', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing post ID) or consequences. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage instructions.

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

• get_weatherC
  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 states the tool 'Gets the current weather,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and the structure is straightforward without any fluff.

  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 (a simple read operation with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values are, potential errors, or any contextual details like data sources or update frequency. For a tool with no structured output information, 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 'location' parameter fully documented as 'The location to get weather for (city, address, etc.)'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on location formats. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the 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 with a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('current weather'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_forecast' or 'get_historical_weather', which aren't present in the provided sibling list but could exist conceptually. The description is accurate but lacks explicit distinction from similar weather-related tools.

  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 any prerequisites, constraints, or context for usage, such as real-time vs. forecasted data or geographic limitations. With sibling tools like 'add_post' and 'delete_post' that are unrelated to weather, there's no explicit comparison or exclusion criteria provided in the description.

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