Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_random_jokeB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Retrieve a random cat joke' without disclosing the effect of the optional 'category' parameter, which is a key behavioral trait. It also does not mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits, though as a read-only operation this may be less critical. The description adds no context beyond the schema.

  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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states exactly what the tool does in the fewest possible words.

  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 simple read tool with an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not mention the optional category filter or differentiate from sibling tools, leaving some context to be inferred. Given the low complexity, a score of 3 is appropriate.

  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% for the single optional 'category' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but since the schema is fully descriptive, the agent has enough information to use the parameter correctly.

  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 ('Retrieve') and a clear resource ('a random cat joke'), which immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_categories' and 'search_jokes'. The purpose is unambiguous and concise.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to the siblings. It does not state that this is for retrieving a single random joke, whereas search_jokes would be for searching with criteria, or list_categories for browsing categories. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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

• search_jokesA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of implying the tool's behavior. 'Search' clearly indicates a read-only, non-mutating operation. It adds the specific scope of searching setup or punchline, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't explicitly state that no modifications occur or how results are returned, but the output schema covers return structure.

  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 a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. It contains no fluff or repetition, every word adds value.

  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 one-parameter tool with a full output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the search scope and the schema covers the parameter. It doesn't specify behaviors like no results or multiple matches, but these are implied by a search operation and the output schema likely handles them. Minor gap: no explicit guidance on when not to use it versus sibling tools.

  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 schema describes 'keyword' as a 'Case-insensitive search keyword,' which is adequate, but the tool description adds crucial meaning: the keyword is matched in the setup or punchline. This is not stated in the schema, so the description enriches 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's function: 'Search jokes for a specific keyword in the setup or punchline.' It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (jokes), and even specifies the search scope (setup or punchline), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_random_joke and list_categories.

  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 the tool: when you need to find jokes containing a specific keyword. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident given sibling tools have different functions (random joke, categories).

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

• list_categoriesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and 'all available' signals the completeness of the result. No side effects or destructive behavior are implied, and the lack of parameters further simplifies expectations.

  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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the operation and scope.

  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 simple nature of the tool, no parameters, and an available output schema, the description is sufficient. It fully explains what the tool does and what the user can expect, making the overall context complete.

  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, and the description correctly implies that no input is needed. With no parameters, the schema already fully covers this aspect, and the description adds appropriate clarity by stating it lists all categories without filters.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('all available cat joke categories'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on category listing rather than random jokes or searching.

  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 should be used when a complete list of categories is needed, and the scope 'all available' sets clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference siblings, but the purpose is clear enough for selection.

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