Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• actor-critic-thinkingA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels at disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the alternating perspective mechanism, tracks rounds, allows multiple dialogue rounds, balances empathy and objectivity, generates nuanced assessments, and provides actionable feedback. It includes detailed instructions on how to use the tool (start with either perspective, alternate, continue until complete) and what each perspective should include.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, when to use, key features, parameters explained, perspective details, instructions), but it's quite lengthy with multiple bullet points and numbered lists. While all content is relevant, it could be more front-loaded and condensed without losing essential information.

  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 the tool's conceptual complexity, 5 parameters with 100% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It thoroughly explains the methodology, usage scenarios, parameters, perspective requirements, and step-by-step instructions. The only minor gap is lack of explicit output format information, but the tool's nature makes return values self-explanatory from the analysis process.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value with a 'Parameters explained' section that elaborates on each parameter's purpose, plus detailed 'Actor perspective should include' and 'Critic perspective should include' sections that provide context for how to use the 'content' and 'role' parameters effectively. This goes well beyond what the schema provides.

  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 as 'dual-perspective performance analysis through actor-critic methodology' and 'comprehensive evaluation of performances, creative works, or decisions'. It specifies the verb 'evaluate' and resource 'performances/creative works/decisions', though it doesn't differentiate from siblings since none exist. The purpose is specific but slightly abstract due to the conceptual nature of the tool.

  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?

  The description provides an explicit 'When to use this tool' section with 7 specific scenarios, including evaluating artistic performances, analyzing intention-execution gaps, providing constructive feedback, reviewing complex scenarios, and performance reviews. It gives clear context for application without alternatives needed since no sibling tools exist.

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