Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_filtersA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining it returns live product counts and that it is a discovery tool. No contradictions with annotations.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and the second sentence provides a clear actionable outcome. No unnecessary words.

  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?

  The description covers the essential information: what the tool returns and how it integrates with the sibling tool. With no output schema, the description gives a good picture of the output structure. It could be slightly more explicit about the output list, but it is sufficient 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 100% coverage with descriptions for 'query' and 'filters'. The tool description adds minimal new parameter-specific meaning beyond the overall purpose; it mentions 'search term or category' but the schema already explains the alternatives.

  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 verb 'Discover' and the resource 'KSP's filter facets for a search term or category'. It specifies the output (filter groups with option ids and live product counts) and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search_products' by framing it as a preparatory step.

  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 instructs to feed the chosen option ids to 'search_products', indicating when to use this tool (before searching). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear.

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

• get_product_imagesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: the tool writes images to the OS temp directory and returns local file paths. This side effect is transparently disclosed, which goes beyond the annotation.

  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 core action and outcome. Every sentence adds value; no filler. Perfectly concise for a simple tool.

  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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers what it does and what it returns. It does not mention error handling or limitations, but for a straightforward download tool it is fairly 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 input schema already describes the 'uin' parameter with 100% coverage, including an example and the option for a URL. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 action ('download all images') and the resource (KSP product by UIN or URL), and it distinguishes from sibling tools which deal with filters, product info, or search. The verb 'download' is specific and the scope is well-defined.

  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 when to use the tool (when you need product images locally) and provides context like saving to temp directory and returning paths. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but sibling differentiation is clear enough.

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

• search_productsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds behavioral details like language support, 'all_pages' behavior (up to 50 pages), and that include_details adds more tokens. No contradictions with annotations.

  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 (three sentences) and front-loaded: first sentence gives purpose and scope, second explains input parameters, third adds language support. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

  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 no output schema, the description adequately covers search behavior, parameter usage, and edge cases (all_pages). It doesn't describe the return format, but for a search tool this is acceptable as the agent can infer from common patterns.

  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?

  With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds value by explaining the relationship between query and filters, how filters combine (AND across groups, OR within), pagination (12 per page), and the effect of all_pages. This goes beyond the schema's 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 tool searches products on KSP, an Israeli electronics retailer, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_filters, get_product, and get_product_images by focusing on general 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 explains that free-text query or filters (from get_filters) can be used, and supports Hebrew and English. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or alternative tools, but the guidance is clear enough for common use cases.

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

• get_productA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with a read operation. Description adds critical behavior: include_raw dumps entire untouched payload and overrides all flags. No contradictions.

  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: first states purpose and default data, second enumerates opt-in flags with a concise rule for include_raw. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential info.

  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?

  For a tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers default outputs, opt-in flags, and the include_raw override. Does not explain return format or error conditions, but given context, it's largely sufficient.

  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?

  All 8 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds value by explaining what each opt-in flag includes (e.g., 'converted to Markdown' for specs, 'with prices and ETAs' for delivery) and notes that variations summary is always shown.

  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?

  Description explicitly states 'Get full details for one KSP product by UIN or URL' and lists the data fields. It differentiates from siblings: get_product is for single product details, while search_products is for search, get_product_images for images only, and get_filters for filters.

  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?

  Description explains default returns (price, promo, stock, variations) and opt-in flags. It implicitly guides when to use this tool (single product lookup) vs siblings, but lacks explicit 'use this when' or 'not for' statements.

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