Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_api_versionsB
  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 full burden. It only states what the tool shows, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects.

  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 sentence that is clear and free of unnecessary words. Every part of it contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

  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 tool has two parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format, how migration lineage is presented, or any details that would help an agent use it effectively.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the parameters 'name' and 'platform' beyond what the schema provides, leaving ambiguity about their intended use.

  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's purpose: showing an availability timeline (since/deprecated/removed) and migration lineage for a symbol. It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like get_api_reference or verify_api_exists.

  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 for checking versioning timeline of a symbol, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_api_reference). No exclusions or context are provided.

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

• get_api_referenceB
  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 full burden. It discloses what the reference card contains but does not mention safety (read-only), side effects, or constraints like rate limits. For a read operation, more transparency is expected.

  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 concise sentences with no fluff. First sentence defines purpose and content, second gives a clear usage tip. Information is front-loaded.

  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?

  Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks full parameter documentation (platform) and behavioral details. Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally adequate but has gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description only adds value for the 'name' parameter (use exact names). The 'platform' parameter is not explained at all, leaving its purpose ambiguous.

  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 it provides a full reference card for a symbol, listing key contents (signature, summary, availability, deprecation/migration). Distinct from siblings which cover release notes, API versions, mobile docs search, and existence checks.

  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?

  Provides a usage tip (use exact names for best results) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_release_notes or search_mobile_docs. Lacks when-not-to-use guidance.

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

• get_release_notesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It does not disclose return format, pagination, permissions, or side effects. The phrase 'release-note chunks' is vague.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

  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 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter behavior, output schema (though present), or when to prefer this over search_mobile_docs.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description does not explain the parameters (query, limit, platform) in any detail. Examples hint at query usage but lack clarity on format and defaults.

  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 retrieves release-note chunks and gives concrete examples ('what's new in Compose 1.7', 'SwiftUI iOS 17 changes'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_api_reference or search_mobile_docs.

  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 implies usage through examples but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives. However, the examples provide clear context for typical use cases.

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

• search_mobile_docsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses key behaviors: target_version filters results based on availability, include_unavailable overrides filtering, and each hit is annotated with availability status. This adds value beyond a simple 'search' definition. With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and does so well, though it could mention response size or rate limits.

  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 structured with a clear one-line purpose followed by a bulleted list of parameters. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or wasted words.

  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?

  Given the output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description covers all necessary context: search scope, platforms, filtering behavior, and parameter details. The tool's role among siblings is clear, making it complete for a search tool.

  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 description coverage, the description fully explains all 5 parameters, including concrete examples (e.g., target_version '1.6.0' for androidx, '16.0' for iOS) and the effect of include_unavailable. This provides rich semantic meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

  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 it searches Android and Apple docs with specific examples (Jetpack/Compose, SwiftUI/UIKit). The verb 'Search' and resource 'mobile docs' are precise, and the tool is well-distinguished from sibling tools like get_api_reference (focused on specific API lookups) and get_release_notes.

  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 for searching mobile docs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned. The context is clear, but exclusions or comparative guidance are absent.

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

• verify_api_existsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns a verdict (available, deprecated, etc.) and migration target. It also labels itself as an 'anti-hallucination check', which is a behavioral trait, but lacks details on potential side effects (though none expected).

  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?

  Description is concise: a one-line summary, followed by a clear list of arguments and return value. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the purpose.

  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?

  Given the existence of an output schema (not shown but known), the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and return value. No gaps remain for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

  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?

  Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains each parameter: 'name' with examples like 'scrollTargetBehavior', 'target_version' with version format examples, and 'platform' with allowed values. This adds significant meaning 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?

  Description clearly states the tool's purpose as an 'Anti-hallucination check' that confirms API existence and usability on a specific version, distinguishing it from siblings like get_api_reference which likely provides full reference details.

  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?

  Description explicitly says to use 'before an agent writes code against it', providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined and the handling of 'unknown' verdict implies caution.

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