Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• analyze_js_fileC
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool analyzes for 'potential issues using ESLint', which implies a read-only diagnostic operation, but doesn't specify what the output includes (e.g., warnings, errors, metrics), whether it modifies the file, or any performance or rate limit considerations. 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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear, direct language. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 complexity of code analysis, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis returns (e.g., linting results, severity levels), how issues are categorized, or any behavioral traits like error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that likely produces structured diagnostic output.

  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%, with the single parameter 'file_path' fully documented in the schema as 'Path to the JavaScript file to analyze'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as file format constraints or path resolution details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 verb ('analyze') and resource ('JavaScript file') with the specific purpose ('for potential issues using ESLint'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_multiple_js_files' or 'get_analysis_report', but the single-file focus is implied. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

  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 like 'analyze_multiple_js_files' for multiple files or 'get_analysis_report' for reports. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit guidelines.

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

• analyze_multiple_js_filesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic function. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether analysis is read-only, destructive, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format might be, which is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity.

  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 with zero waste, clearly front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, making it easy to parse.

  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 annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'analyze' entails, what issues are detected, or the return format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand tool behavior.

  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 the 'file_paths' parameter fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as file format expectations or analysis scope, resulting in a baseline score.

  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 action ('analyze') and target ('multiple JavaScript files'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'analyze_js_file' which handles single files. However, it lacks specificity about what 'potential issues' means, keeping it from a perfect score.

  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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_js_file' or 'get_analysis_report'. The description implies usage for multiple files but doesn't clarify scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

• get_analysis_reportB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose critical traits such as whether it returns cached data, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens if no last analysis exists. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely depends on prior actions.

  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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for a zero-parameter tool.

  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 complexity (likely dependent on prior analysis operations) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the report contains, its format, or error conditions, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond the basic action.

  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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's acceptable here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from the schema's completeness.

  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 action ('Get') and resource ('detailed report from the last analysis operation'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_fix_suggestions' which might also retrieve analysis-related data, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.

  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 specify prerequisites (e.g., that an analysis must have been run first), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'analyze_js_file', leaving usage context unclear.

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

• get_fix_suggestionsB
  3.4/5.0
  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. It mentions 'Get suggestions' but doesn't describe what the suggestions include (e.g., code fixes, explanations), how they are formatted, whether this is a read-only operation, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, dependencies on prior analysis). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without waste. It is front-loaded with the key action ('Get suggestions') and avoids redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 complexity (simple, no parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what the suggestions entail or how they are returned. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, it should provide more context to be fully helpful.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for, and the description doesn't introduce unnecessary complexity.

  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 action ('Get suggestions') and the target ('for fixing issues found in the last analysis operation'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_js_file' or 'get_analysis_report' by focusing on post-analysis fixes rather than analysis or reporting. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource type (e.g., JavaScript files), which keeps it from a perfect score.

  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 context ('in the last analysis operation'), suggesting this tool should be used after an analysis operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_analysis_report' or provide exclusions (e.g., whether it works without a prior analysis). The guidance is implied but lacks explicit alternatives or prerequisites.

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