Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_full_contentC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, return format, error handling, or performance. It only says 'get full content', which is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or limitations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is short but includes an unnecessary 'Args:' section that repeats parameter info. It could be more concise by integrating parameter descriptions into the main sentence.

  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 no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description should explain return values, edge cases, and usage context. It falls short, providing only a minimal statement about retrieving content.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It lists parameters with vague descriptions (e.g., 'The documentation provider (e.g., neoforge, fabric)'). No formats, defaults, or examples are provided, leaving ambiguity for three required parameters.

  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 full content of a documentation file', which specifies the action and the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_providers and get_structure by focusing on content retrieval.

  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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or cases where it should not be used.

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

• get_structureC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The term 'previews' is vague and not explained. The description fails to provide sufficient behavioral context.

  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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args list is redundant with the input schema but does not harm readability. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the redundancy could be trimmed.

  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 simple schema (2 string params, no output schema) and the presence of siblings, the description covers the basic functionality. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination, or behavior of 'previews', and does not provide guidance on how it relates to siblings. It is minimally adequate but not fully 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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It lists example values for provider (e.g., neoforge, fabric), which adds semantic value beyond the parameter names. However, it does not describe the format or constraints for version, and the parameter documentation remains minimal.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool gets 'the file structure with previews for a specific version of documentation' with specific parameters. It identifies the verb 'get' and the resource 'file structure with previews'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_full_content or get_providers, which slightly reduces clarity.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning when it is appropriate or when to use sibling tools like get_full_content. This leaves the agent without decision criteria.

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

• get_providersA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions the return type ('formatted string') without disclosing side effects, required permissions, or any behavioral traits such as idempotency or rate limits.

  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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and return type. No superfluous text.

  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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what it does and returns. However, it could briefly clarify what constitutes a 'provider' or 'version' to avoid ambiguity.

  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?

  There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. Baseline score of 4 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 'Get' and the resource 'list of available documentation providers and their versions', which is distinct from sibling tools 'get_full_content' and 'get_structure'.

  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 as a discovery tool to list providers, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites. With zero parameters, the usage is straightforward, but guidance is minimal.

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