Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_articles_by_personB
  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 carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the basic operation without any details about return format, potential limitations, ordering, pagination, or side effects. The agent is left without insight into what the tool actually returns or how it behaves beyond the minimal 'Get' 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, consisting of one clear sentence plus an argument definition. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no extraneous information, making it easy to parse and understand.

  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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior, such as return value structure, filtering semantics, or any limitations. It does not, leaving the description under-specified even for a simple tool. The agent has no information about what to expect from the response or when to opt for this tool over a sibling.

  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 has 0% description coverage for its single parameter, so the description must compensate. It provides 'person: Name of the person', which clarifies the parameter's meaning, though it is largely a restatement of the parameter title. It offers minimal additional value but is enough for the simple, self-explanatory parameter.

  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 function: 'Get articles mentioning a specific person.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('articles') with a clear filter condition (by person), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_articles_by_date. The purpose is unambiguous and directly aligned with the tool name.

  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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It also does not reference sibling tools or suggest when another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent without clear direction.

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

• get_article_groupsA
  3.5/5.0
  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 disclosing behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention permissions, pagination, error behavior, or return format. The only added context is the definition of 'article groups,' which is helpful but insufficient for a fully transparent description.

  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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, a brief clarification of the key concept, and a compact parameter spec. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

  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 read-only getter with one parameter, the description covers the essential purpose, parameter format, and default. It does not describe return value structure or potential errors, but given the simplicity and no output schema, it is reasonably complete. It loses one point for not clarifying how it differs from sibling tools, which would help contextual selection.

  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 input schema provides only the parameter name and type (string/null) with no description. The description compensates fully by specifying the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), that it is optional, and the default behavior (defaults to today). This is exactly the semantic information an agent needs 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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('main articles groups') scoped to a date. It also explains what article groups are, adding clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_articles_by_date or get_categories, so it lacks direct sibling 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?

  The description implies usage when you need article groups for a date, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so the agent is left to infer context solely from the purpose.

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

• get_similar_articlesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'Get articles similar to the provided text.' It does not explain how similarity is determined, what happens with empty results, or any limits. The 'Get' verb implies read-only behavior, but that is 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and the Args section is minimal. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Args line largely repeats the schema, the overall size is appropriate.

  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 simple interface with one string parameter, and the description covers the core functionality. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks information about result format, limitations, or behavior on edge cases, making it only minimally complete.

  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 schema only labels the parameter as 'Text', while the description adds 'Text to find similar articles for', clarifying the role of the input. For a single parameter, this is sufficient semantic context, especially given the 0% schema description 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 clearly states the tool gets articles similar to a provided text, using the verb 'Get' plus a specific resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_articles_by_date and get_articles_by_person by focusing on similarity to arbitrary text.

  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 about when to use this tool instead of siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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

• get_articles_by_dateA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 mentions the default for the 'date' parameter (defaults to today) and parameter formats, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it discuss potential errors or response characteristics. This is adequate for a simple getter 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?

  The description is extremely concise, with a clear topic sentence followed by a structured argument list. No extraneous text is present, and all information is front-loaded.

  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 the simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and defaults. It does not provide information about return values or explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

  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 has zero description coverage for its parameters, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'date' with format and default, 'category' as a filter, and 'tags' as a comma-separated list. This gives the agent all necessary context to correctly provide values.

  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 ('Retourne les actualités' - returns news) and the resource (articles for a given date), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_articles_by_person, but the specificity of the date-based scope is sufficient.

  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 such as get_articles_by_person or get_similar_articles. The description simply states what it does without mentioning use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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

• get_categoriesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (returning categories and counts) and the default date behavior, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, mention permission requirements, or describe error conditions. This is adequate for a simple getter but lacks richer behavioral context.

  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 one-sentence purpose followed by a clear parameter specification. Every part contributes meaning, and the most important information is front-loaded.

  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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics. It clearly conveys the return concept ('categories and their article counts') and the default behavior. It doesn't detail ordering, pagination, or error handling, but for this simplicity level it is sufficiently complete.

  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 input schema provides only the type and default for 'date' (string|null, default null), with no description. The description compensates by specifying 'Target date in YYYY-MM-DD format (optional, defaults to today)', adding meaning and format guidance beyond 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 what the tool does: 'Get all categories and their article counts for a specific date.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope combination, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on categories and counts rather than articles or article groups.

  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 its siblings (e.g., get_articles_by_date, get_article_groups). It does not mention alternatives or exclude contexts, so the agent is left without contextual usage direction.

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