Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• explain_checkA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 describes the output behavior (explaining verification, importance, remediation) but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or output structure. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

  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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every word is informative, and there is no redundancy or wasted content.

  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?

  The description explains what the output contains, compensating for lack of an output schema. However, it could mention the language parameter's role or output format. Given the complexity (two params, no output schema), it is mostly complete.

  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 covers both parameters (check_id, lang) with descriptions. The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining the impact of the lang parameter or how check_id is used. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

  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's action ('explain what it verifies, why it matters, and how to remediate a failure') and resource ('a check id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools: 'check_domain' runs checks, 'list_checks' lists them, while this explains.

  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 implies usage context ('Given a check id (see list_checks)') by referencing the sibling tool for obtaining valid IDs. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to understand prerequisites.

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

• list_checksA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations exist, so description must convey behavioral traits. It describes the output (grouped list with reasons) but does not mention side effects, pagination, or performance. As a read-only list operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

  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, no wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence 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?

  For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and what the output provides (grouped, with reasons). Could mention output structure briefly, but overall sufficient.

  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% (lang parameter fully described in schema). The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter; it omits mention of lang entirely. Baseline of 3 applies since schema does the work.

  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?

  Clearly states it lists every check, grouped by category, with reasons. Distinguishes from siblings (check_domain, explain_check) by listing all checks rather than focusing on one.

  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?

  Explicitly says 'Useful to know what check ids exist,' guiding agents to use it when they need to discover available checks. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides indirect guidance.

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

• check_domainA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions live checks and output formats but lacks explicit statement about read-only nature, auth requirements, or error behavior. Moderately transparent but could be more specific.

  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, front-loaded with verb and resource, no unnecessary words. Highly efficient.

  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?

  Output schema exists, so return format detail is not needed. Description covers purpose, scope, and options. Lacks prerequisites or error handling, but overall adequate for a straightforward check tool.

  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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters (100% coverage). Description adds value by clarifying domain/URL acceptance and optional category restriction, going beyond schema details.

  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?

  Clearly states it runs Oksigenia Checker against a domain, returns a scored security report from live checks, accepts domain or URL, and optionally restricts categories. Distinguishes from siblings list_checks and explain_check by being the execution tool.

  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?

  Implied usage: to get a domain security report. Sibling names provide context, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. Still clear enough for effective selection.

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