Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_thread_repliesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the return format (dict with success status and list of replies) and the optional since_ts parameter. However, it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or if the tool requires authentication.

  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 structured with an Args section and Returns section, making it easy to parse. It is concise without unnecessary elaboration, though the first sentence 'Get replies in a Slack thread.' is somewhat redundant with the name.

  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 tool with 3 parameters and an output schema mentioned but not detailed, the description provides adequate information for basic usage. However, it omits details about error handling, pagination of replies, and behavior if the thread is not found, leaving gaps for complex usage.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: channel is a 'Channel ID', thread_ts is a 'Timestamp of the parent message', and since_ts is 'optional' and 'only return messages after this timestamp'. This adds sufficient 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 the tool gets replies in a Slack thread, using specific verb 'Get' and resource 'replies'. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'ask_user' and 'send' which have different purposes.

  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 suggests using the tool 'to check for new messages in a thread you started', providing a specific use case. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as using the 'send' tool for posting messages.

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

• sendA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains message formatting (mrkdwn), channel default, thread replies, urgency effects (@here), and mention requirement (SLACK_USER_ID). However, it omits potential side effects, rate limits, or error conditions, so it is adequate but not fully transparent.

  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 concise (two paragraphs) with a clear 'Args' and 'Returns' structure. Every sentence adds value, starting with a direct purpose statement. No redundant or vague phrases.

  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 has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all parameters and the return type. It addresses common usage scenarios but lacks details on error responses or prerequisites (e.g., Slack permissions). Still, it is mostly complete for typical operation.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: message (mrkdwn), channel (default, name/ID), thread_ts (timing), urgency (enum with @here), and mention_user (boolean with config requirement). It adds meaning beyond the schema's type/enum constraints.

  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 'Send a message to a Slack channel or thread.', specifying the action and the target resource. It is distinct from sibling tools 'ask_user' (likely for questioning) and 'get_thread_replies' (fetching responses), so the agent can easily differentiate when to use this tool.

  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 provides context on when to use specific parameters like 'thread_ts' for replying and 'urgency' for priority. It also mentions default channel and @mentions. Although it doesn't explicitly state 'when not to use' or compare to siblings, the purpose and parameter guidance are clear enough for most use cases.

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

• ask_userA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states that the tool blocks until reply or timeout, explains the return dict, and gives a non-blocking alternative. All behavioral traits are disclosed.

  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 well-structured with sections and front-loaded purpose. The code example adds value but lengthens it slightly. Overall efficient for the complexity.

  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?

  Given 4 parameters, blocking behavior, and an output schema (mentioned but not detailed), the description covers all essential aspects: usage, blocking, timeout, non-blocking alternative, default channel, and return value.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds detailed meaning for all parameters: question, channel (default SLACK_DEFAULT_CHANNEL), context, and timeout_minutes (default 5, max 30). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

  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 action ('Send a question to the user via Slack') and the resource ('user via Slack'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'send' and 'get_thread_replies' by highlighting the blocking wait for reply.

  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 says 'Use this when you need user input or a decision' and provides a non-blocking usage pattern. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use, but the blocking behavior is clearly stated, giving enough guidance.

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