Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fb_anti_duplicate_checkA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses inverted similarity threshold and Jaccard method, but does not mention read-only nature or when page_access_token is required.

  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?

  Well-structured with Args/Returns, front-loaded main purpose. Some verbosity around threshold is justified but could be tightened.

  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?

  Covers all parameters and return values (output schema exists). Minor gaps: missing behavior for empty recent posts and auth token necessity.

  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?

  All 5 parameters are described with details beyond schema (e.g., 'numeric Meta Page ID', Jaccard explanation). Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates fully.

  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?

  Clearly states 'compare a candidate message against recent posts on the page', specifying action and resource. Distinct from sibling tools (generating, publishing, validating).

  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?

  Usage is implied (pre-publish duplicate check) but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. Sibling tools are different, so no direct competition, but guidance could be stronger.

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

• fb_publish_postA
  4.2/5.0
  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 key behaviors: skip_validation bypasses checks, scheduled_at time constraints, image required conditionally, and the return structure. It also explains the need for page_access_token in production. However, it does not mention rate limits or detailed error scenarios beyond the return block.

  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 well-structured as a docstring with clear sections for each parameter and the return value. It is verbose but every line adds value. Minor improvement possible by shortening some explanations, but overall efficient.

  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 6 parameters (2 required), no annotations, and an output schema mentioned, the description covers all parameters, their constraints, and the return value. It does not mention sibling tools explicitly but the purpose is clear. Missing error handling examples or advanced edge cases, but still sufficiently complete.

  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 0%, but the description provides rich details for each parameter: image_url's conditional requirement, scheduled_at's time delta constraints, page_access_token's derivation and necessity, and skip_validation's default/impact. This fully compensates for the missing schema 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 'Publish a post on a Facebook Page via Meta Graph API.' It uses a specific verb ('Publish') and resource ('post on a Facebook Page'), and the sibling tools (anti-duplicate check, generate with image, validate) are distinct, so there is no confusion.

  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?

  While the description explains parameters in detail, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (fb_anti_duplicate_check, fb_generate_post_with_image, fb_validate_pre_publish). The context implies that this is the main publishing tool, but no when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is given.

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

• fb_validate_pre_publishA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses network call dependency (fetch_recent, page_access_token) and details of checks (e.g., Jaccard index). No annotation support; description carries burden well, though potential side effects are not fully covered.

  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?

  Efficient structure: intro line, bulleted checks, parameter list. Every sentence adds value. No fluff.

  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?

  Covers checks, parameters, return value. Given no annotations and 0% schema coverage, description is thorough. Minor omission: no details on error handling or exact output dict keys.

  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 0% schema coverage, detailed parameter descriptions compensate fully: values, defaults, purpose (e.g., fetch_recent 'Set False to skip network'). Adds meaning beyond 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?

  Clear verb+resource: validates pre-publish. Lists four specific checks, differentiating from sibling tools like fb_anti_duplicate_check which only performs one check.

  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?

  Explicitly states 'BEFORE publishing', giving clear usage context. Describes optional fetch_recent behavior, but doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use.

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

• fb_generate_post_with_imageA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Given no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: no publishing, returns URL, allows iteration. It lacks rate limit or error details but is sufficient for a read-like generation tool.

  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 well-structured with a clear summary, usage note, parameter details, and return description. Every sentence is concise and purposeful.

  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 purpose, workflow, parameters, and return values. It could mention error handling or limits, but for the complexity it is complete.

  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?

  Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description's 'Args' section thoroughly explains each parameter, including defaults and recommended input, adding significant value.

  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 generates an image for a candidate post and returns a usable URL, explicitly distinguishing it from publishing tools.

  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?

  It provides explicit guidance: 'Does NOT publish' and directs the caller to use fb_publish_post or fb_validate_pre_publish next, including rationale about quota management.

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