Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_postsC
  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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only gives a terse statement. It omits details about result ordering, pagination, rate limits, or what the query matches against, making the tool's runtime behavior largely opaque.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is a single concise sentence, which is appropriately short for a simple operation. However, it lacks any structural breakdown or additional context that could make it more useful, so it is adequate but not exemplary.

  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?

  The description is incomplete for a tool with three parameters and no output schema. It does not explain the return format, how resultType affects behavior, or any limitations, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about the tool's operation.

  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 parameters are fully described in the schema. The description does not add any extra parameter-specific context, but it doesn't need to since the schema is complete.

  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 a search operation with a query, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_posts, create_post, and get_post. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or clarify how it differs from read_posts, so it doesn't reach the top 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 such as read_posts or get_post. The absence of any contextual hints or exclusions leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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

• create_postB
  3.3/5.0
  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 'Create' (implying a write operation) but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens upon success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the essential action and resource. It is concise and easy to parse, though it omits other useful details. It earns high marks for efficiency but is slightly under-specified for a complete tool description.

  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?

  This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, but the description is minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the created post object), whether it requires special permissions, or any other behavioral context. Given no annotations, the description leaves important gaps for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

  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 fully documents the single parameter 'text' with type, maxLength, and a clear description. The tool description does not mention parameters, so it adds no additional meaning. Given the schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new post on Twitter/X'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all read/search operations (read_posts, get_post, search_posts). This is unambiguous and action-oriented.

  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 usage is implied by the verb 'Create' in contrast to the read-oriented sibling tools, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It's clear that this is for creating posts, but no further context is given.

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

• read_postsB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention filters (includeReplies/includeRetweets), count limits, pagination, rate limits, or return structure. The bare statement 'Fetch the latest posts' gives minimal insight beyond the 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 sentence of ten words, front-loaded with the action and resource. There is zero redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

  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?

  With no output schema and four parameters, the description provides a concise summary but lacks usage guidance and behavioral context. The schema compensates for parameter details, but the description does not explain expected return format or when to prefer this tool. It is adequate but not complete for a tool with no annotations.

  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%, with clear descriptions and defaults for all four parameters (username, count, includeReplies, includeRetweets). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 a specific action ('Fetch the latest posts') and resource ('specified Twitter/X user'). This distinguishes it from siblings: create_post (creation), get_post (likely a single post), and search_posts (searching). The verb and target are unambiguous.

  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 does not mention scenarios like 'when you need a user's timeline' or contrast with search_posts for keyword-based retrieval. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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

• get_postA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 only says 'Get', which implies read-only, but it does not mention authentication, error behavior, rate limits, or response format. This is a minimal coverage for a tool with no annotation-based safety hints.

  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 front-loaded with the action and resource. It is minimal yet complete for the purpose, with no wasted words.

  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?

  This is a simple one-parameter tool, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least hint at the return value or error cases. It does not, so the context is only partially 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 schema fully describes the 'tweetId' parameter with a clear description, and the tool description adds no extra meaning. According to the high schema coverage (100%), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a specific resource ('tweet') and a distinguishing qualifier ('by ID'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like read_posts (likely listing), search_posts (searching), and create_post (creating).

  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 the tool is for retrieving one specific tweet by ID, which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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