Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• read_recipeA
  3.5/5.0
  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. It discloses that the tool reads data (implying a read-only operation) and returns comprehensive fields, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if ID/title doesn't exist), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. It adds some behavioral context but leaves 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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first specifies the action and inputs, the second details the output scope. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured, making every sentence earn 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?

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the purpose and output scope but lacks behavioral details like error cases or return structure. For a read tool with moderate complexity, it's minimally viable but not fully complete.

  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 both parameters (id and title) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by reiterating 'by ID or exact title' and implying these are alternatives, but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or precedence rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 tool's purpose: 'Read full recipe data by ID or exact title' specifies the verb (read), resource (recipe data), and input methods. It distinguishes from 'search_recipes' by emphasizing exact matching rather than search, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_recipe' or 'format_fraction'.

  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 context by stating 'by ID or exact title' and mentioning it returns 'all recipe fields', which suggests this is for retrieving complete records. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'search_recipes' (which likely handles partial matches) or other siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• format_fractionA
  4.2/5.0
  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 describes key behaviors: conversion of simple and complex fractions, handling of pre-formatted unicode, whitespace stripping, and no server connectivity requirement. However, it does not mention error handling, performance limits, or output format details, leaving some 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place. It starts with the core purpose, provides examples, handles edge cases, and adds operational context (no server connectivity, testing use) efficiently in a few concise sentences without 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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behaviors, but lacks details on error handling, output format, or performance considerations. With no output schema, some information about return values would be beneficial, though not strictly required.

  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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'fraction' with its type and format. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing examples ('1/4', ' 31 / 200 ') and mentioning whitespace stripping, but does not elaborate on parameter semantics significantly. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 with specific verbs ('format', 'converts') and resources ('fraction string to unicode fraction characters'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_recipe, search_recipes, and update_recipe. It provides concrete examples ('1/4' to '¼') and handles edge cases like already-formatted fractions and whitespace stripping.

  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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('format a fraction string to unicode fraction characters') and mentions it can handle already-formatted fractions, but does not specify when not to use it or provide alternatives to sibling tools. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with other tools.

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

• search_recipesA
  4.2/5.0
  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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: pagination, alphabetical sorting, exclusion of trashed recipes, and what fields are searched. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers most operational aspects.

  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 efficiently structured with four sentences that each add value: search scope, return format, special query case, and behavioral constraints. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words.

  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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about what fields are searched, pagination, sorting, and filtering. It could be more complete by describing the exact return format or error conditions, but covers the essential operational context.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the empty query behavior and context lines purpose, but doesn't provide significant additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents thoroughly.

  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 verb 'search' and resource 'recipes', specifies what fields are searched (title, ingredients, categories, directions, notes), and distinguishes from siblings like 'read_recipe' and 'update_recipe' by focusing on search functionality. It provides specific scope and behavior.

  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 (searching across multiple fields) and includes a specific usage note about empty queries to get all recipes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools.

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

• update_recipeA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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 adds critical context beyond what the input schema provides: it warns that the operation is 'DANGEROUS' and 'requires user confirmation,' which are essential behavioral traits (risk level and confirmation needs) not covered by the schema. This compensates well for the lack of 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 front-loaded with key information (purpose and danger warning) in just two sentences, with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by conveying critical details efficiently, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

  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 complexity (a dangerous mutation tool with 5 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job by covering purpose, risk, and scope. However, it lacks details on what happens on success/failure or error handling, which would be helpful for completeness. It compensates well but has minor gaps.

  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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it only implies that parameters relate to 'find/replace' operations on 'text fields,' which is already clear from the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not significantly 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 ('update recipe fields using find/replace') and resource ('recipe'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'read_recipe' (read-only) and 'search_recipes' (searching). It specifies the scope ('any text field in a recipe'), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

  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 by stating this is a 'DANGEROUS operation that requires user confirmation,' which implicitly guides when to use it (with caution and confirmation). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using 'read_recipe' to check first), so it lacks full explicit guidance.

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