Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• crossfade_patternC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only describes the core action. It does not mention whether this is a pure generation operation, what the output format is, whether it makes changes, or any side effects or requirements.

  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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and clearly structured. It has no wasted words and directly conveys the tool's purpose.

  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?

  The description is too terse given the lack of annotations and output schema. It does not explain what 'patterns' or 'epistemic states' mean, how the transition works, what the resulting series looks like, or any constraints on the steps parameter. More context is needed for an agent to invoke this tool 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?

  The schema descriptions for from, to, and steps already cover 100% of parameters with meaningful clarity. The description adds the concept of 'transition between two epistemic states' which hints at the from/to semantics but does not add significant detail beyond the schema.

  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 function: generating a series of patterns that transition between two epistemic states, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_pattern by emphasizing the transition between two states, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

  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 generate_pattern or generate_mood. The description only states what the tool does, not the context or conditions under which it should be selected.

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

• generate_moodB
  3.1/5.0
  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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does without describing any side effects, permissions, output format, or limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool that 'generates' something.

  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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant information.

  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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details about the generated pattern's nature or return value. It is not misleading but leaves gaps about expected output and broader context.

  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 already fully documents the single 'mood' parameter with enum values and a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 a specific verb and resource: generate a pattern for a mood preset. It distinguishes from sibling tools by limiting to mood presets, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is direct and unambiguous.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_pattern or explain_mapping. The description implies usage for mood presets but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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

• get_pattern_urlB
  3.3/5.0
  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 simply states what the tool does without mentioning side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or details about the returned URL (e.g., permanence, format). This is minimal and leaves potential safety concerns unaddressed.

  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, concise sentence that leads with the action and includes the target service. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

  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?

  The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains the core function but omits details about the result format or any caveats. Given the low complexity, the description is minimally adequate but could benefit from a note about the returned URL's nature or the meaning of 'current pattern'.

  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 provides 100% coverage of the parameter, including its optionality and fallback behavior ('uses last generated if not provided'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already fully explains the parameter, meeting the baseline for full coverage.

  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 states a specific action ('Get a shareable URL') for a specific resource ('current pattern on strudel.cc'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_pattern or crossfade_pattern, which have different purposes.

  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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, preconditions, or sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

• explain_mappingB
  3.4/5.0
  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. It states the action but does not disclose the output format, whether the parameter is optional, or any specific behavior beyond 'explain'. For a read-only explanation tool, the risk is low, but the lack of detail about response or parameter behavior leaves 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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Explain'. It avoids unnecessary words and is 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?

  This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description provides the core subject but does not describe the expected return format or any additional context about epistemic vectors or musical parameters. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at the nature of the explanation, which it does not.

  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 schema fully describes the single parameter 'vector' with 'Specific vector to explain (optional, explains all if not provided)', which is 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so it does not augment the schema.

  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 uses the specific verb 'Explain' and clearly identifies the resource: 'how epistemic vectors map to musical parameters'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_pattern or get_pattern_url, which perform generation or fetching. It is clear and specific.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or prerequisites. However, the purpose itself implies it should be used when the user seeks an explanation of the mapping concept, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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

• generate_patternA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Returns code' without mentioning side effects, external calls, determinism, permission needs, error behavior, or what happens to the input vectors. For a generation tool that takes a complex epistemic vector object, this is a significant transparency gap.

  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 short sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the action and input. The second sentence clarifies the output format. Every phrase earns its place, 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.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool has a complex input (nested object with 13 properties) and no output schema, yet the description only provides a high-level purpose. It does not explain how to choose values for the vectors, what each mode ('full', 'minimal', 'drums') means in terms of output, or what the generated code looks like. While the schema details parameter semantics, the description lacks guidance on usage nuances and expected output behavior, making it only minimally complete for a tool of this 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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes every parameter and vector sub-property. The description adds the context that these are 'epistemic vectors' and that the result is Strudel code, but it does not explain how mode, includeComments, or individual vector values affect the output. The schema already handles the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 function: it 'Generate a Strudel music pattern from epistemic vectors' and 'Returns code that can be pasted into strudel.cc.' This is a specific verb+resource+output. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'crossfade_pattern' or 'generate_mood', but the unique input ('epistemic vectors') and output code makes the purpose fairly distinct.

  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 gives clear context: the tool is for generating Strudel code from epistemic vectors. It implies that the agent should use it when it has such vectors and needs a pattern to paste into strudel.cc. It does not state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is explicit enough to guide selection among siblings.

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