Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_ancestorsC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieval but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral 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, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, behavioral traits, or parameter usage, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic purpose.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is low at 40%, with only 'key' and 'depth' described in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying 'person ID' relates to 'key', failing to compensate for the coverage gap or explain parameters like 'bioFormat', 'fields', or 'resolveRedirect'.

  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 ('Retrieve') and target ('ancestors for a given person ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_descendants' or 'get_relatives' which likely retrieve similar family data, missing explicit sibling distinction.

  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 'get_descendants' or 'get_relatives', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. It merely states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios.

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

• get_descendantsC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieval but doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

  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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and output, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is low at 40%, with only 'key' and 'depth' having descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter details beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. For example, it doesn't explain what 'bioFormat' or 'fields' entail.

  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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('descendants for a given person ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ancestors' or 'get_relatives', which would be needed for 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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_ancestors' or 'get_relatives'. The description only states what it does, without context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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

• get_relativesC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'retrieve' entails (e.g., format, pagination). This is inadequate for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema.

  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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse without unnecessary details.

  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 complexity (7 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output format, or parameter meanings, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is low at 14%, with only 'keys' parameter documented. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'person ID or list of IDs', which loosely relates to 'keys', but doesn't explain the other 6 parameters (e.g., boolean flags for family types, 'bioFormat', 'fields'). It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

  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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('relatives'), specifying it works for 'a given person ID or list of IDs'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_ancestors' and 'get_descendants' by focusing on immediate family relations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

  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 like 'get_ancestors' or 'get_descendants' is provided. The description implies usage for retrieving relatives but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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

• call_apiC
  2.9/5.0
  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 states the tool calls API endpoints 'directly' but doesn't explain authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'directly' implies (e.g., raw HTTP calls, response format). This is a significant gap for a generic API tool with potential side effects.

  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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 complexity of a generic API tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error responses, rate limits, and how to interpret results, which are critical for correct invocation. The presence of sibling tools adds context but isn't addressed.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (action and params). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., examples of actions, structure of params). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 purpose: 'Call any WikiTree API endpoint directly' specifies the verb ('call') and resource ('WikiTree API endpoint'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_person' by being a generic API caller rather than a specific data retrieval function. However, it doesn't specify what 'directly' means operationally, 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 the sibling tools (get_ancestors, get_descendants, get_person, get_relatives). It doesn't mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the generic nature of the tool versus specialized siblings.

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

• get_personB
  3.1/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens with invalid keys. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential 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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details, usage context, and output expectations, which are important for a tool interacting with an external API like WikiTree.

  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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already documented in the input schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain the significance of the 'key' parameter (e.g., that it's a unique identifier) or provide examples for 'fields' or 'bioFormat'. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

  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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('a single person record from WikiTree'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like get_ancestors or get_descendants, which also retrieve person-related data but with different scopes.

  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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like get_ancestors (for lineage) or get_relatives (for family connections), nor does it specify prerequisites or typical use cases for retrieving a single person record.

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