Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_patternA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read operation returning text, but does not disclose what happens if the name is not found, any authentication needs, or side effects. The behavior is simple but could be more detailed.

  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 consists of two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds usage context in a single line.

  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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It could mention the return format (e.g., plain text) but the context of retrieving 'full text' is 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?

  Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds an example value and notes that the name comes from list_patterns. This provides practical guidance beyond the schema's field description.

  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 'Return' and the resource 'full text of an orchestration pattern by name'. It references a sibling tool (list_patterns) for context, distinguishing its purpose from it.

  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 says 'Use it to apply the pattern when orchestrating ask_openrouter calls', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It references list_patterns as a prerequisite but does not explicitly provide exclusions or alternatives.

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

• list_patternsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (each pattern's name, title, summary, and when to use it). It does not mention any side effects, but as a read-only list operation, this is sufficient. Minor gap: does not explicitly state it is read-only.

  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 the action and target, second provides usage guidance and return details. No redundant words. Front-loaded and efficient.

  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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It also integrates well with sibling tools, making the context complete.

  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 no parameters, and the schema is fully covered. The description adds meaning by explaining what the list contains (name, title, summary, when to use) and the context for using it. Baseline 4 for zero parameters 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available orchestration patterns for driving ask_openrouter'). It clearly states what the tool does and differentiates from siblings by mentioning get_pattern as the next step.

  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?

  Explicitly states when to call this tool ('before non-trivial expert work — reviews, audits, threat modeling, large-document analysis') and what to do next ('then read the chosen one with get_pattern'). Provides clear context for usage.

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

• ask_openrouterA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description fully bears burden. It discloses default behavior (Fusion), reasoning normalization across providers, billing for Fusion calls, mutual exclusion of reasoning params, temperature limitations, and error handling policy. No annotation contradictions.

  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?

  Description is detailed but well-structured. Every sentence adds value; slight verbosity is justified given 11 parameters and complex interactions. Could be slightly more concise, but earns its length.

  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 11 parameters, no output schema, and complex usage patterns, the description is complete. It covers parameter interactions, billing, error handling, and relationship to siblings. Sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

  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 100%, but description adds significant context: default model, reasoning level mapping, Fusion usage restrictions, mutual exclusion rule between reasoning_effort and reasoning_max_tokens, and temperature applicability. Adds meaning beyond raw 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?

  Description starts with 'Ask an OpenRouter model as a subagent. ONE tool for everything:' clearly indicating it queries models. It distinguishes from siblings (get_pattern, list_patterns) by implying this is the general-purpose query tool. Scope is unambiguous.

  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?

  Explicit guidance on when to use a fast single model vs fusion, and when to call list_patterns/get_pattern first. Also includes error handling instructions (retry, do not change config without user say-so). Provides clear when-to/not-to-use context.

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