Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_translation_statusB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the high-level function but does not disclose side effects (whether it is read-only), how missing/outdated keys are determined, what 'estimate translation costs' entails, or return format/error behavior.

  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, front-loaded sentence that is concise and free of redundancy. Every word contributes meaning without repeating schema details.

  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?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns and how to interpret results. It only describes the action, not the output structure or behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for an 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?

  The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 'Compare' and clearly identifies the resource ('source locale against target locales') and outcomes ('identify missing/outdated keys and estimate translation costs'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like sync_translations and list_local_locales.

  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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or reference sibling tools, leaving the usage context only vaguely implied by the tool name and description.

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

• list_local_localesA
  3.7/5.0
  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. It implies a read-only operation through the verb 'scan' and 'return', but does not explicitly confirm it makes no modifications or describe potential edge cases (e.g., empty projects, unsupported frameworks). The listed frameworks and file types add context, but behavior like recursion or detection heuristics is not disclosed.

  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 action ('Scan project') and then packs valuable details (file types, frameworks) without fluff. Every phrase earns its place, making it concise yet informative.

  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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should more thoroughly describe the return contract. It says 'return structured information' but does not specify what fields or structure to expect, nor does it mention default behavior for project_path or handling of mixed frameworks. This is adequate but leaves gaps that an agent might need to discover at runtime.

  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% for both parameters (project_path and include_key_count), so the schema already explains each parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying how include_key_count affects output or project_path defaults. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter documentation.

  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 ('Scan project for locale files'), lists concrete file types and frameworks, and indicates the output (structured information). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_translation_status and sync_translations, which focus on status and synchronization rather than discovery.

  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 for discovering available locales and detecting the i18n framework, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or references to sibling tools are provided, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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

• sync_translationsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key safe behavior: 'Default is dry_run=true for preview,' and the incremental sync behavior. However, it does not disclose actual side effects of a real run (e.g., writing to files, modifying existing translations), which is a notable gap for a sync tool.

  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 at two sentences and front-loads the core purpose and key behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler.

  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?

  The description covers purpose and a key safety default, but for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, it omits important context like what happens after a real sync, whether files are modified, or what the preview output includes. The schema descriptions help, but overall completeness is moderate.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context around adding new languages and incremental syncing, but the schema already documents parameter details like dry_run and write_to_files. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond what the schema offers.

  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: 'Add new languages or sync existing translations via LangAPI.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list locales or fetch status, making it the action tool for translation updates.

  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 the tool (adding/syncing translations) and explains its incremental behavior ('only translates what's new or changed'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the use case is unambiguous given the siblings.

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

• get_account_statusA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation via 'Get' and specifies the returned fields, providing transparency about what the call does. It does not explicitly state that no allowance is consumed, but the wording implies a non-mutating status check.

  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 main verb and resource, then a concise usage note. No wasted words; each sentence serves a purpose.

  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 status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully enumerates the expected response fields and provides contextual guidance related to syncing translations. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

  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, and the schema is empty. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no additional explanation is required.

  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 'Get the current LangAPI account status' and enumerates specific data points (plan, allowance, credits, reset), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_translation_status and sync_translations.

  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 guidance: 'Use this to check remaining words/credits before syncing translations,' indicating when to call this tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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