Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_skillsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the search scope (name or description), the compact result format, and that include_description controls the preview. But it omits behavior around the limit and owner parameters, and doesn't describe pagination, sorting, or error/null-result behavior, leaving meaningful transparency 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 short sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and search scope, while the second adds the most critical behavior (return format, include_description effect, and query length constraint). Every sentence earns its place.

  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?

  For a 4-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core search and result shape but omits details on owner and limit parameters, and doesn't distinguish when to use this versus sibling tools beyond the single 'use this' line. It is sufficient for basic usage but not fully complete given the schema/annotation void.

  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%, so the description must explain all parameters. It adds meaningful semantics for query (keyword in name or description, min 2 chars) and include_description (returns preview if true). However, it gives no explanation for limit (max results) or owner (filtering), leaving half the parameters under-specified in a zero-coverage schema context.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('agent skills') and scope ('by keyword (name or description)'). It also immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like list_skills (which implies listing all) and load_skill (which implies loading a full skill), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

  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 explicit guidance: 'Use this to find a skill for a task.' It clearly indicates the intended use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as list_skills or load_skill, so it stops short of a 5.

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

• list_skillsA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 discloses that it returns only compact metadata (id, name, source, installs) and omits descriptions/content, which affects context usage. However, it does not mention pagination or sorting behavior beyond what the schema hints at.

  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 core purpose and efficiently provides key behavioral and usage information. 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.

  Completeness4/5

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

  The tool is a simple list operation with optional parameters and no output schema. The description adequately explains the return value (compact metadata fields) and the context-efficiency benefit. However, it does not cover the effects of pagination or sorting options, which are inferable from parameter names but not explicitly described.

  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%, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics. It only mentions the output format, leaving the meaning of page, view, per_page, and include_description entirely to the parameter names and defaults. The description adds minimal value for 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 tool lists available agent skills from the registry, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing its compact output and positioning as a pre-search browsing tool.

  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 explicit guidance: 'Use this to browse what is available before searching.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not name the alternative tool (search_skills) explicitly or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

• load_skillA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call is 'expensive (context-heavy)' and that it returns 'complete SKILL.md plus optional supporting files', which are useful behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. However, it does not cover error handling or define 'supporting files' in detail, so a small gap remains.

  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, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and gives examples; the second delivers usage guidance. Perfectly sized and structured.

  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?

  For a simple load tool with 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main return value, usage context, and parameter hints. The omission of 'max_bytes' semantics is the primary gap, but overall the description is quite complete for its complexity.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides valuable examples for 'id' and hints at 'include_supporting_files' via 'optional supporting files', but 'max_bytes' is left unexplained. This partial compensation falls short of fully documenting all parameters.

  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 uses a specific verb 'Load' with a clear resource ('one skill by id') and gives concrete examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'FULL content' and the requirement of a specific skill id, clearly separating it from listing/searching.

  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?

  Explicitly states when to use ('when you have decided to use a specific skill and need its full instructions') and when not to, with alternatives named ('prefer list_skills/search_skills first'). This is textbook usage guidance.

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