Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_weekly_limitsB
  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 carries full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves usage limits (implying a read-only operation) but lacks behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get your 7-day weekly usage limits') and adds necessary detail ('broken down by model'). There is zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

  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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks context on when to use it versus siblings, behavioral traits, or output details. For a read-only tool with no complex schema, it meets minimum viability but could be more 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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter information, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied as it avoids redundancy while being complete for a parameterless tool.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('weekly usage limits'), specifying the breakdown by model (all models combined, Opus, Sonnet). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_usage' by focusing specifically on 7-day weekly limits rather than general usage. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'check_rate_status' or 'get_session_usage', keeping it from a perfect score.

  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 like 'check_rate_status', 'get_session_usage', or 'get_usage'. It implies usage for checking weekly limits but offers no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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

• get_usageB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what data is returned, not behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, freshness of data, or error conditions. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated) or any system impacts.

  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?

  Single sentence efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action ('Get a full dashboard') followed by specific details about what's included.

  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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what data is returned but lacks information about authentication, rate limits, or error handling. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful for an agent.

  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?

  With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output scope.

  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 what the tool does ('Get a full dashboard of your Claude Pro/Max subscription usage') with specific resources identified (session limits, weekly limits, extra usage credits). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning comprehensive dashboard vs. specific components, though not explicitly naming alternatives.

  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 context (checking subscription usage) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. sibling tools like get_session_usage or get_weekly_limits. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is included.

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

• get_session_usageA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose and output semantics (burst limit usage and reset time) but lacks details on behavioral traits like error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits. It doesn't contradict annotations, but offers only basic operational 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes all necessary details without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

  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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what the tool does but lacks context on output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. For a read-only tool with no structured data, it meets basic needs but could be more comprehensive.

  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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately omits parameter details, focusing on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since it compensates well for the lack of parameters by clarifying what the tool returns.

  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 specific action ('Get'), resource ('your current 5-hour session usage window'), and scope ('how much of your burst limit you have used and when it resets'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on session-specific burst limits rather than rate status, general usage, or weekly limits.

  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 for monitoring burst limit consumption and reset timing, which helps differentiate from siblings like 'get_weekly_limits' or 'check_rate_status'. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites, preventing a perfect score.

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

• check_rate_statusA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 describes the tool's behavior by stating it returns a status with actionable advice, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits itself, or provides real-time data, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, 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.

  Completeness4/5

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

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete by explaining the purpose and return values. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like authentication needs or data freshness, which could enhance completeness for a rate-limiting tool. Without an output schema, it adequately describes returns but could be more thorough.

  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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as no additional semantics are needed beyond what the 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's purpose with specific verbs ('Check') and resource ('rate limited'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on status assessment rather than usage retrieval. It specifies the exact return values (LOW, MODERATE, HIGH) and includes actionable advice, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

  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 ('close to being rate limited') and suggests when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools. It provides clear context for usage but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to tools like get_session_usage or get_weekly_limits.

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