Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_keystoreC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create', implying a write operation, but fails to mention whether it overwrites existing files, what happens if the path already exists, the type of keystore generated, or any authentication requirements. For a tool that creates a sensitive artifact, this is insufficient transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence, which is concise but at the expense of completeness. It is front-loaded with the core action, but there is no structured information about when to use the tool or what it returns. It could be reorganized to include bullet points or additional context without being verbose.

  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 that the tool has 6 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., directory existence). For a file-creating tool with multiple optional fields, more context is needed for safe invocation.

  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?

  All six parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain domain-specific conventions (e.g., key alias uniqueness) or relationships between parameters (e.g., keyPassword and keystorePassword). The description adds no value over 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 'Create a new keystore for APK signing' clearly states the action (Create) and the resource (keystore) with a specific purpose (APK signing). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_keystores, sign_apk, and verify_apk_signature, which are different operations. However, it could be more specific (e.g., keystore format) and does not explicitly differentiate itself from potential sibling tools that might also create something.

  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. Sibling tools suggest it should be used before signing APKs, but the description does not mention prerequisites, typical workflow placement, or situations where another tool might be more appropriate. The one-sentence description lacks any usage context.

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

• verify_apk_signatureB
  3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided. The description does not disclose what the verification checks (e.g., against a keystore), prerequisites, side effects, or whether it is read-only. Minimal behavioral context 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.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  One sentence, no waste, but too minimal to convey useful context. Could be expanded without losing conciseness.

  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?

  No output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter. The description omits crucial details like what the verification returns (success/failure, signer info) and error conditions.

  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 schema already documents the single parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the parameter description 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 verb 'verify' and the resource 'APK signature'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sign_apk' and keystore management 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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether to use it before or after signing, or how it differs from verification via other means.

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

• list_keystoresB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the list is recursive, what format the results are in, or any permission requirements.

  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 concise sentence, no unnecessary words. However, it is minimal and could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

  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 no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks details about output format, recursion behavior, and edge cases, making it incomplete for a tool with one 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?

  Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'directory', which already has a description. The tool description does not add new information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline.

  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 'list' and the resource 'keystores in a directory', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_keystore, sign_apk, and verify_apk_signature.

  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 about when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria or context recommendations.

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

• sign_apkA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting files), output location, error handling, or prerequisites beyond defaults. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the purpose and key usage guidance efficiently.

  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?

  Given the low complexity (6 simple parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but lacks details on output (e.g., signed APK path) and behavioral traits. It meets basic needs but could be more complete for a signing operation.

  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 description adds minimal value beyond reinforcing that apkPath is required and other parameters have defaults. It does not provide syntax, format, or additional context not in 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 clearly states 'Sign an APK file using Uber APK Signer', specifying the action (sign), resource (APK file), and tool (Uber APK Signer). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_keystore and verify_apk_signature.

  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 explains that only apkPath is required and other parameters can use defaults or be configured, providing clear guidance on minimal usage and flexibility. It implies usage when signing an APK, but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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