Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate_appB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that sideload implies zip and requires developer mode. However, it does not discuss the overwrite parameter, error conditions, or whether the tool modifies the original spec. Overall, some useful context but significant gaps.

  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 long, front-loading the main purpose and then adding optional features. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (6 params, nested objects, output schema present), the description covers the core workflow and two optional features. However, it misses documenting assets_root and overwrite, and does not address prerequisites (validated AppSpec) or error scenarios. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description could still be more complete.

  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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It covers spec, output_dir, zip, and sideload, but leaves assets_root and overwrite unexplained. With 2 of 6 parameters undocumented, the description adds limited value over the bare schema.

  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 it renders a Roku channel project from a validated AppSpec and writes to output_dir. It also mentions optional zip and sideload. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like package_app or sideload_app, missing a chance to clarify when to use this combined tool vs separate steps.

  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 gives usage context for optional parameters (zip, sideload) and explains that sideload implies zip. But it lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or when to use siblings. For instance, it does not say 'use sideload_app if you only need to install an existing zip'.

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

• get_template_schemaA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided; description only states what is returned, with no mention of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or other 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?

  Single sentence front-loading the purpose with no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Missing context on prerequisites (e.g., template must be registered) and valid ID sources, but overall adequate for a simple tool.

  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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It implies 'id' is a template identifier but does not explicitly explain its role or constraints. Partial compensation above baseline.

  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 it returns the JSON Schema (Draft 7) and a minimal example spec for a registered template's AppSpec. The verb 'Return' and specific resource distinguish it from siblings like list_templates, generate_app, etc.

  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 use when needing a template's schema but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives among siblings.

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

• sideload_appA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses important behaviors: HTTP Digest authentication, multipart POST to specific endpoint, parsed response, and that dev_password is never logged. No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden and does well.

  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 dense sentences: first covers the core operation, second adds return value and security note. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

  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?

  Covers the main action and output, but lacks prerequisites (device must be in developer mode, network reachable) and error behavior. Output schema exists but description doesn't reference it.

  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 descriptions are 0% covered, and the description provides minimal parameter-specific details. Only dev_password's non-logging is mentioned; zip_path and device_ip are not explained beyond their names.

  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 action: 'Install a zip on a Roku device in developer mode.' It distinguishes from sibling tools (generate_app, package_app, etc.) which focus on app creation and packaging, not installation.

  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 but not explicit. No guidance on when to use this over alternatives or prerequisites like device must be in developer mode and network accessible.

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

• package_appA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses validation (checks for manifest) and byte-reproducibility, but omits side effects, permissions, default behaviors, or error conditions. This is adequate but incomplete for a fully transparent definition.

  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 sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by validation and a key property. Every word earns its place.

  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 simplicity, the description covers the main use case, validation, and a notable feature. However, it does not explain what happens when output_zip is omitted (since it's optional) or describe the return value. The presence of an output schema mitigates this somewhat, but the optional parameter handling remains unclear.

  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%, yet the description adds no individual parameter explanations. It only mentions that project_dir is an already-generated directory with a manifest. The optional output_zip parameter is not described, leaving ambiguity about its default behavior. This is insufficient for high-quality tool selection.

  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 action (zip), the resource (Roku project directory), and the purpose (sideload-ready archive). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the input is an already-generated project, setting it apart from generate_app and sideload_app.

  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 the tool is used after generation and before sideloading, providing contextual placement. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use directives or alternative mentions, though the sibling list partially compensates.

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

• list_templatesA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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 that the tool returns only metadata (not full schemas), implying a read-only operation, which is adequate behavioral context.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

  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 tool has no input parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It states the scope (metadata only) and points to a sibling for schema retrieval.

  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?

  The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers that aspect. Baseline 4 is appropriate as there is nothing more to add.

  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 'List every template bundled with this server.' It specifies the verb (list) and resource (templates), and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool get_template_schema by noting that this tool returns only metadata.

  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 explicit context for use: when you need to list templates. It also tells when not to use it (for schema details) and directs the agent to the appropriate sibling tool (get_template_schema).

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