Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• explore_entity_graphA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 describes the return structure (entity, direct connections, relationships) and mentions traversal behavior with hops, but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when the entity isn't found. The description adds value but 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main 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?

  For a graph traversal tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and when to use it. However, it lacks details about the return format structure, error handling, performance characteristics, and limitations that would be important for an agent to use this tool effectively in complex scenarios.

  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?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions traversal with hops but doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage or interactions.

  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 purpose with specific verbs ('traverse', 'returns') and resources ('knowledge graph', 'entity', 'direct connections', 'relationships'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on graph traversal from a specific entity rather than corpus statistics or general search.

  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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to build reasoning chains or verify facts about a known entity'), which implicitly suggests it's for exploring known entities rather than discovering new ones. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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

• get_corpus_statsA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 describes what the tool returns (counts of documents, chunks, entities, relationships) but doesn't mention performance characteristics, potential limitations, or error conditions. The behavioral information is adequate but minimal.

  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 perfectly concise with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and return values, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

  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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate coverage of purpose and usage. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the structure of returned statistics. The description is complete enough for basic understanding but leaves some implementation details unspecified.

  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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output.

  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 purpose with specific verbs ('Get statistics') and resources ('indexed knowledge base'), and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on corpus-level metrics rather than entity exploration or search functionality.

  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 explicit usage contexts ('corpus health checks' and 'understand the scale of available data'), giving clear guidance on when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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

• searchA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the critical workflow for ticker symbols, the risk of semantic search missing exact matches, and what each mode returns (e.g., raw text chunks for keyword_lookup). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are minor gaps.

  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 clear sections (critical note, workflow, mode selection guide), and every sentence adds value by explaining usage or behavior. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool with three modes, though it could be slightly more concise by reducing some repetition (e.g., the mode explanations are detailed but lengthy).

  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's complexity (three modes, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and parameter semantics effectively. However, it lacks information on output format details (beyond high-level returns like 'raw text chunks') and potential limitations or errors, which would enhance completeness for a search tool without an output schema.

  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 the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the semantics of the 'mode' parameter in detail (e.g., keyword_lookup for exact terms, entity_connections for relationships), providing examples and use cases that go beyond the schema's enum descriptions. It clarifies the practical implications of mode selection, though it doesn't add much for 'query' or 'topK' beyond what the schema already covers.

  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 searches a GraphRAG knowledge base with three distinct modes, specifying the exact functionality (searching with keyword_lookup, entity_connections, and thematic_overview). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on search operations rather than exploration or statistics gathering, making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use each mode, including a critical workflow for ticker symbols/acronyms (use keyword_lookup first), and clear examples for each mode. It explicitly states alternatives within the tool itself (the three modes) and gives detailed when/when-not instructions, such as avoiding semantic search for exact ticker matches.

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