Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_roku_docsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, including the hierarchical tree browsing semantics, document counts at top level, and subfolder/document listing with a prefix. It does not contradict the annotations.

  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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately gives the two relevant usage modes.

  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 adequately explains the tool's behavior and return-like information (sections, counts, subfolders, documents) for a browsing operation. It is complete enough given the simple optional parameters and read-only annotation, though it does not detail error or edge-case 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?

  Both parameters are already fully described in the input schema with type information and example values. The description adds minimal new parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 function: browsing the documentation tree and listing sections, subfolders, and documents. It is specific about behavior with and without a prefix, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like search_roku_docs.

  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 provides clear usage context by explaining the no-prefix and with-prefix behaviors. However, it does not state when this tool should be used over alternatives such as search_roku_docs or get_roku_doc.

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

• refresh_roku_docsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it explains that the download is skipped if the upstream branch hasn't moved, that force:true overrides this, and that a summary of changes is returned. This complements the idempotentHint and explains the mutation mechanism without contradicting any annotations.

  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?

  Two tight, high-signal sentences, with the core action and the key exception front-loaded. No filler or repetition of schema content.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with one optional parameter, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the action, the conditional skip behavior, the override flag, and the return value. The sibling context confirms its role in the doc tool set, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

  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%, and the schema already explains force clearly. The description adds only a slight rephrasing ('re-index regardless'), so it does not significantly enrich parameter understanding beyond the 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?

  States a specific verb ('Re-sync'), resource ('local index'), and upstream source ('rokudev/dev-doc@v2.0'). This clearly distinguishes it from the read-only siblings search_roku_docs, get_roku_doc, and list_roku_docs.

  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 the use case: run this when you need to re-sync the local index from the upstream repo. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over the sibling tools or mention any preconditions like network access or repository availability.

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

• get_roku_docA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them — no contradiction. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the 11.7 KB threshold triggers an outline instead of content, and sections can be requested directly by number or heading text. This is exactly the kind of conditional behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.

  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?

  Three sentences, each earning its place: core function, conditional large-document behavior, and workflow optimization. The main purpose is front-loaded, and there is zero filler.

  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?

  With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior, and it covers all modes: full markdown for small docs, numbered outline for large docs, and section content when `section` is passed. Minor gaps remain — error behavior for nonexistent paths and the interaction when both `full` and `section` are supplied — but nothing that would cause a misdirected call.

  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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by tying `section` to the outline mechanism and explaining the search-to-section workflow, which clarifies how the parameters interact in practice rather than just what they mean.

  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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the markdown content of a single documentation page by path.' The phrase 'single... by path' clearly separates it from the sibling tools (search, list, refresh), so an agent can pick it without opening their schemas.

  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?

  The description gives clear workflow context: for documents over 11.7 KB, expect an outline and pass `section` to read a part; and if search results already name the best-matching section, you can skip the outline fetch entirely. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when-not-to-use, but the search-results reference effectively encodes the efficient call path.

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

• search_roku_docsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns a path, title, and highlighted snippet, supports FTS5 syntax, and ranks results by relevance. No contradiction with annotations exists.

  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?

  Three focused sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then syntax details, then return format and follow-up tool. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  There is no output schema, so the description appropriately describes the return shape (path, title, snippet). It also covers search syntax and directs the agent to the proper next step. Combined with full schema documentation for params, the agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.

  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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining query flexibility ('plain keywords as well as FTS5 syntax'), giving examples, and clarifying that results are relevance-ranked. This extra context helps an agent craft effective queries.

  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 states a specific verb ('Full-text search'), a specific resource ('Roku/BrightScript documentation'), and the distinctive behavior ('ranked by relevance'). It clearly separates this tool from its siblings: get_roku_doc reads a full document, while search finds matches.

  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?

  The description tells the agent to use get_roku_doc to read a result in full, providing a clear follow-up pathway. It does not explicitly contrast with list_roku_docs or state when not to use this tool, but the search-vs-browse distinction is implied by the wording.

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