Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• file_operationsC
  2.9/5.0
  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. While it mentions the three operation types, it doesn't describe what 'read' returns, how 'write' handles existing files, what 'list' includes, what 'info' provides, workspace boundaries, error conditions, or permission requirements. This is inadequate for a multi-operation tool with mutation capabilities.

  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 (7 words) and front-loaded with all essential information. Every word earns its place by covering the core functionality without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

  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?

  For a multi-operation tool with write capabilities and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, workspace constraints, or behavioral differences between operations. The agent lacks critical information needed to use this tool effectively.

  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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage without description enhancement.

  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's purpose with specific verbs (read, write, list) and resource (files in current workspace). It distinguishes this tool from its siblings (calculator, system_info) by focusing on file operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate between the different operation types within the tool itself.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when specific operations are appropriate. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with other file management approaches. The agent must infer usage from the operation parameter alone.

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

• calculatorB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'perform basic mathematical calculations' implies a read-only computation, it doesn't explicitly state whether this tool has side effects, requires permissions, handles errors (like division by zero), or has rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

  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 directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the operations.

  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 low complexity (basic math operations) and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers what the tool does but lacks details on return values, error handling, or usage context. With no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral insight, but for this simple tool, it's adequate though with clear gaps.

  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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters (operation, a, b). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

  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's purpose with specific verbs (add, subtract, multiply, divide) and the resource (mathematical calculations). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like file_operations and system_info by focusing on arithmetic operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternative calculation tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, limitations, or context for choosing this calculator over other methods. With sibling tools like file_operations and system_info available, there's no indication of when mathematical calculations are appropriate versus those other operations.

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

• system_infoB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates a read operation ('Get'), it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (e.g., structured data vs. raw text). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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 purpose ('Get information about the system') and lists specific components (platform, CPU, memory, uptime). There is zero waste or 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 low complexity (one optional parameter with full schema coverage) and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are important for an agent to use it effectively without annotations.

  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 description does not mention the 'detail' parameter or its semantics. However, the input schema has 100% description coverage, with a clear enum for 'basic' and 'full', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, even without param info in the 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 'Get' and the resource 'information about the system', specifying the exact scope: platform, CPU, memory, and uptime. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'calculator' and 'file_operations' by focusing on system diagnostics rather than calculations or file management.

  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 alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool's name and purpose alone.

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