Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• zim_queryA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses silent path auto-correction, per-intent defaults, ignored parameters, compact-mode response reduction, truncation-wiring via content_offset, and synthesize-mode caveats. It also warns that synthesize is a mode toggle, not a search-harder flag. No contradiction with annotations exists because none were provided.

  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?

  Lengthy in total size, but well-structured and earned: front-loaded intent instructions, compact operation list, clear per-parameter guidance, and warnings placed precisely where they relate. No filler is evident; the verbosity is justified by tool complexity.

  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?

  An exceptionally complex tool — ten parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no sibling tools — and the description still covers intent rewriting, aliases, all primary operations, per-intent defaults, output return types, and synthesize response fields. The only omission is the undocumented cursor argument, and that does not meaningfully undermine an otherwise complete invocation guide.

  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?

  Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description covers query, zim_file_path, limit, offset, compact, compact_budget, synthesize, max_content_length, and content_offset in meaningful detail, including defaults and when to omit. The one clear gap is the schema's cursor parameter, which is never mentioned and therefore has no discoverable meaning.

  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?

  Opens with a clear action and resource: 'Query ZIM archives using natural language.' It then describes the tool as an intent-dispatching operation that accepts a variety of named operations, so an agent can understand its scope even without sibling tools to contrast against.

  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?

  Provides unusually explicit invocation guidance: 'EXTRACT INTENT BEFORE CALLING. Do not pass the user's raw message as query,' with concrete examples and a complete list of accepted operations. It also clarifies handling of aliases, when to omit zim_file_path, and when parameters are ignored or should be bumped.

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