Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• toolfunnel_howtoA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that instructions are returned and mentions the system documents itself. It does not mention safety (read-only, no side effects), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

  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 the core purpose. The first sentence explains what the tool does and lists all topics; the second reinforces the self-documentation aspect. No unnecessary words.

  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?

  With one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the topic list adequately. However, it does not mention the return format (e.g., markdown, plain text) or whether the instructions are step-by-step. Still, the tool's purpose is narrow, and the description is mostly 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% with a clear enum and description for 'topic'. The description adds value by listing the enum values in a prose sentence, but the schema already describes each option. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not add significant new meaning 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 starts with 'Get self-extension instructions' which clearly states the verb and resource. It then enumerates specific topics (create-tool, add-mcp, add-hook, package, wrap, configure), distinguishing this tool from siblings like toolfunnel_tool_instructions (which likely covers using tools) and toolfunnel_list_tools (listing). The purpose is unambiguous.

  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 when the user wants to extend the system, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., toolfunnel_tool_instructions for using tools). No when-not or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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

• toolfunnel_run_toolA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Reveals return shape and gating behavior, but lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or side effects. 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?

  Very concise: three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then args and behavior. No wasted words.

  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?

  Return format is explained even without output schema. Gating is mentioned. Could elaborate on error cases (e.g., tool not found), but for a generic runner this is acceptable.

  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 already covers both parameters (100% coverage). Description adds valuable context by instructing to call toolfunnel_tool_instructions for arg shape, and summarizes the arg structure. Clearer than schema alone.

  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 executes a registered tool by name, and distinguishes it from sibling tools (list, instructions, howto) which are about discovery and learning.

  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?

  Provides explicit guidance to call toolfunnel_tool_instructions first to learn args, and notes that calls are gated and may be denied. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings.

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

• toolfunnel_tool_instructionsA
  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 full burden. It describes a retrieval operation ('Get the full usage instructions') and implies no side effects. However, it does not explicitly declare read-only or idempotent behavior, which is a minor gap.

  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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the purpose, includes relevant examples, and provides a usage note. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

  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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It could optionally specify the output format (e.g., text), but this is not a critical omission.

  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 single parameter 'name' has a schema description that specifies it must be an exact tool name from toolfunnel_list_tools. The tool description adds context by listing examples ('venv, the reliable invoke command, safety notes'), reinforcing the meaning 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 it retrieves full usage instructions/documentation for a specific tool by name, giving examples like 'venv, the reliable invoke command, safety notes'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings that list, run, or provide how-to guidance.

  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 explicitly advises 'Read this before running the tool yourself,' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling set makes the usage context clear.

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

• toolfunnel_list_toolsA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (list of {name, summary, category}) and that it's 'briefs only'. No destructive or side effects are implied, and the description is honest about what it provides.

  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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a simple listing tool with optional filters, the description covers everything: what it returns, how to filter, and links to the next step. No output schema is needed because the return format is specified.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of filtering ('matched against tool name/summary') and the category restriction, but the schema already provides similar descriptions. However, the description contextualizes the parameters in the overall workflow.

  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 it lists available tools with briefs, optionally filtered by text and/or category. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by directing to toolfunnel_tool_instructions for specific tool details.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides a clear workflow: list tools, optionally filter, then use toolfunnel_tool_instructions for a specific tool. It explicitly mentions filtering options and tells when not to use this tool (for detailed instructions, use sibling).

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