Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fetch_and_saveB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions automatic scraping and ingestion but fails to specify error handling, rate limits, side effects (e.g., overwriting), or return values. Critical gaps for a tool that performs network I/O and data creation.

  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?

  Two sentences with zero waste: first sentence nails the core purpose, second adds useful context about supported source types. Front-loaded and efficient.

  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 moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description omits critical details: return value (likely nothing or resource ID?), error behavior, and relation to sibling tool save_resource. This limits the agent's ability to use it 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?

  Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

  Description clearly states the tool fetches, extracts, and saves URL content into the knowledge graph, covering various source types like web pages and PDFs. This distinguishes it from siblings like browse_nodes (navigation) and save_resource (saving already known data).

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like save_resource or when to avoid using it (e.g., offline URLs, or if content is already in the graph). The context for selecting it is only implied by the action description.

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

• save_resourceA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses automatic chunking and embedding for semantic search, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention permissions, error states, or reversibility.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no superfluous words, and easy to parse.

  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?

  While the description covers primary purpose and automatic processing, it lacks return value information and error handling hints. Given no output schema, this is a gap for full understanding.

  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 good parameter descriptions (e.g., node_id suggests browsing first). The tool description adds context about chunking/embedding but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what schema provides.

  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 saves a new resource (with enumerated types) to a specific node in the knowledge graph, distinguishes from siblings like browse_nodes (browsing) and fetch_and_save (web fetch), and mentions automatic chunking and embedding.

  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 direct content saving but does not explicitly contrast with fetch_and_save or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. No alternatives or preconditions are stated.

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

• get_nodeA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, description carries full burden. It states the tool returns detailed info (children, resources) but does not disclose side effects (none apparent), authentication, or rate limits. Acceptable for a simple read tool but lacks depth.

  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?

  Two sentences with no redundant information. Front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every word adds value.

  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?

  Given no output schema, description adequately covers return values (detailed info, children, resources). For a single-parameter tool, this is sufficient, though it could mention pagination or depth limits if applicable.

  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% and describes node_id as 'The node ID to inspect'. Description adds meaning by specifying the returned content includes children and resources, going beyond the schema definition.

  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?

  Description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific node including children and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like browse_nodes (browsing) and fetch_and_save (fetching/saving) by focusing on inspecting stored content.

  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?

  Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to inspect what's already stored in a particular area of the knowledge graph.' This implies read-only inspection. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, though sibling context is available.

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

• search_knowledgeA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It explains that the search is semantic and returns ranked chunks with source info, indicating a read-only, retrieval operation. It does not explicitly state that no data is modified, but the context implies safety.

  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 two concise sentences. The first sentence defines functionality and output; the second provides usage context. No redundant or filler content, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 search tool with 3 simple parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core behavior and return type ('ranked chunks with source info'). It could be more complete by mentioning pagination or result format, but is adequate for its complexity.

  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 three parameters well. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., no clarification on query formatting or node_id usage). 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 states the action ('Search'), target ('knowledge base'), method ('using semantic similarity'), and output ('Returns ranked chunks with source info'). It is distinct from sibling tools which are for browsing, fetching, or saving.

  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?

  Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to find relevant information before creating new resources.' This helps the agent understand when to apply the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools.

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

• browse_nodesA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns a tree with 3 levels of children and can start from a specific node or root. This covers key behavioral traits, though it doesn't discuss pagination or limits, which is acceptable for a simple browse operation.

  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 two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and specifics (tree, 3 levels), and the second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no 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?

  Given the low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the tool's functionality, how to use it (omit node_id for root), and provides a well-known root ID. The return value is described as a tree of children up to 3 levels, which is sufficient for this simple tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema coverage is 100% with one parameter (node_id). The description adds valuable context beyond the schema: 'Start from this node (omit for root). Well-known: root=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001'. This clarifies usage and provides a concrete example.

  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 'browse' and the resource 'knowledge graph structure', and specifies it returns a tree with 3 levels of children from a starting node or root. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_knowledge or fetch_and_save.

  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 to understand how knowledge is organized before searching or saving', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling tools list provides some implicit differentiation.

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