Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_icon_usage_examplesB
  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. It states what the tool does but does not reveal any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned examples. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap, warranting a score of 2.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. This optimal conciseness earns a score of 5.

  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 (2 required parameters) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format, which are important for an agent to use the tool effectively. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more, resulting in a score of 3.

  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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('name' and 'style'), including an enum for 'style'. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'name' relates to icon components or providing examples of usage. Given the high schema coverage, 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.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'usage examples for an icon', making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_all_icons' or 'search_icons', which might also involve icons but serve different functions. This clarity without sibling distinction justifies a score of 4.

  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 such as 'list_all_icons' or 'search_icons'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone. This lack of explicit guidelines results in a score of 2.

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

• search_iconsB
  3.1/5.0
  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 lacks behavioral details. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, response format, pagination, or error handling. The description only states the basic functionality without 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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for this tool's complexity and front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details about return values, error conditions, and behavioral constraints that would be helpful for an AI agent.

  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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'name or category' search, which aligns with the 'query' parameter but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in 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 action ('Search for icons') and resource ('from heroicons'), specifying the search scope ('by name or category'). It distinguishes from 'list_all_icons' by implying filtering, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_icon_usage_examples'.

  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 siblings is provided. The description implies filtering capabilities but doesn't specify scenarios where search_icons is preferred over list_all_icons or get_icon_usage_examples.

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

• list_all_iconsB
  3.3/5.0
  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. It mentions listing and optional filtering but doesn't describe key behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of icon names, metadata). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

  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 purpose ('List all icons from the heroicons library') and adds an optional feature ('optionally filtered by style'). There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

  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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter intent but lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format or usage constraints. For a listing tool, this is borderline acceptable but could be improved with more context.

  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 the single parameter 'style' fully documented in the schema (including enum values 'solid' or 'outline'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optionally filtered by style', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional context like default behavior if omitted or how filtering is applied.

  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 'List' and resource 'all icons from the heroicons library', which provides a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_icons' or 'get_icon_usage_examples', which likely have different functions (searching vs listing, or getting usage examples vs listing icons).

  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 by mentioning 'optionally filtered by style', suggesting this tool is for listing icons with optional style filtering. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_icons' (which might allow more complex queries) or 'get_icon_usage_examples' (which focuses on examples rather than listing).

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