Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• translate_compareA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the core behavior (comparative translation across levels) and mentions output formatting ('formatted for comparison'). However, it lacks details about rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only vs. mutating operation. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves 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.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage context, parameter documentation, and return value description. It's appropriately sized for a 6-parameter tool with complex functionality. Some sentences could be slightly more concise, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

  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 complexity (6 parameters, comparative functionality) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and detailed parameter semantics. The main gap is in behavioral transparency aspects like rate limits and error handling, but the output schema reduces the need to describe return format.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantic explanations for all 6 parameters, including examples, default values, optionality, and references to other tools for valid values. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, clearly explaining what each parameter controls and how to use them.

  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: 'Translate text at multiple proficiency levels to compare complexity differences.' It specifies the verb (translate), resource (text), and scope (multiple proficiency levels for comparison). It distinguishes from sibling 'translate' by emphasizing the comparative aspect across levels rather than single-level translation.

  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 when to use this tool: 'useful for understanding how grammar and vocabulary constraints change across proficiency.' It references sibling tools ('use list_languages to see available codes') but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over the basic 'translate' tool or provide exclusion criteria.

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

• list_languagesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 describes the tool as a list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly state permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds some context by specifying what information is returned (language codes, levels, moods, modes), but lacks details on format, pagination, or potential constraints. This is adequate but has gaps 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and return information. Every sentence earns its place by adding value—no waste or redundancy. The structure is clear and efficient, 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.

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, usage guidelines, and what information is returned. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it adequately covers the tool's role in the context of sibling tools. This provides sufficient information for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

  The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it does mention that the tool helps discover 'valid language codes, proficiency levels, mood options, and mode options,' which indirectly clarifies the output context. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as the description provides useful output-related context without redundancy.

  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: 'List all languages supported by Levelang with their available levels and moods.' This is specific (verb: 'List', resource: 'languages'), and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on discovery rather than translation. The mention of 'valid language codes, proficiency levels, mood options, and mode options' further clarifies its role in providing configuration data.

  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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover valid language codes, proficiency levels, mood options, and mode options before calling the translate tool.' It provides clear context (preparation for translation) and names an alternative ('translate tool'), effectively guiding the agent on usage versus siblings like 'translate' and 'translate_compare'.

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

• translateA
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains the unique behavior of producing translations at learner proficiency levels (beginner, intermediate, etc.) rather than native-speaker complexity. It also mentions that returns include 'metadata about the translation,' which adds useful context beyond basic translation output.

  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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, explains the unique value proposition, then provides clear parameter documentation in a structured format. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

  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's complexity (6 parameters, unique proficiency-based translation behavior) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description provides complete context. It explains the tool's unique behavior, documents all parameters thoroughly, references related tools, and mentions the output includes metadata - covering all necessary aspects for effective use.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides excellent parameter semantics: explaining what each parameter does, giving examples (e.g., 'fra, deu, cmn'), clarifying defaults ('eng for English'), and explaining constraints ('any length, any source language'). The description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Translate text to a target language at a specific proficiency level.' It distinguishes itself from standard translators by explaining it produces translations at the learner's level with varying complexity based on proficiency. This specificity helps differentiate it from generic translation tools.

  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 when to use this tool (for learner-level translations) and references the sibling tool 'list_languages' to discover available language codes and modes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or how it differs from 'translate_compare' (the other sibling tool mentioned).

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