Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• browse_categoryC
  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 what the tool does but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what the output looks like (e.g., list of sounds with metadata). This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., sound listings, links, metadata) or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with such minimal structured data, more context is needed.

  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 parameter 'category' fully documented in the schema (including allowed values). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying category-based browsing, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 action ('browse') and resource ('sounds by category') with the specific domain 'myinstants.com'. It distinguishes from 'play_sound' (which plays rather than browses) and 'search_sounds' (which searches rather than browses by category), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_sounds' is provided. The description implies usage for category-based browsing but doesn't specify 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.

• search_soundsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't describe what the search returns (sound files, metadata, links), whether results are paginated, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. 'Search' implies read-only behavior, but this isn't explicitly stated.

  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 extremely concise - a single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses straightforward language. Every word earns its place in communicating the essential 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?

  For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what kind of results to expect (sound files, metadata, URLs), how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. The agent would be operating with significant uncertainty about the tool's 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?

  The schema description coverage is 100% with the single 'query' parameter well-documented, so the description doesn't need to compensate. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema documentation.

  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 ('Search') and target resource ('myinstants.com for sound buttons'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'browse_category' or 'play_sound' - a search tool could potentially overlap with browsing functionality without clearer boundaries.

  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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browse_category' or 'play_sound'. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or limitations that would help an agent choose between these related sound-related tools.

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

• play_soundA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining the return behavior ('Returns the sound duration in seconds') and async nature ('plan around async playback'), but it lacks details on potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs. It provides useful context but not comprehensive behavioral traits.

  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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, return value, and async behavior, but it could improve by mentioning error handling or usage constraints. Without an output schema, it does explain the return type, which helps compensate.

  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 all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationships between slug, url, and query. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance parameter understanding.

  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 specific action ('Play a sound from myinstants.com') and resource ('sound'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like browse_category and search_sounds which are for discovery rather than playback. It also specifies the return value ('Returns the sound duration in seconds'), making the purpose explicit and distinct.

  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 provides clear context for usage ('so you can plan around async playback') and implies when to use it (for playing sounds rather than browsing or searching). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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