Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_commentsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states the action ('Retrieve') but does not clarify if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or describes the return format (e.g., list structure, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that fetches data.

  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, direct sentence with zero wasted words, efficiently stating the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a data retrieval tool. It does not explain what the return values look like (e.g., comment format, error handling) or address behavioral aspects like permissions or limitations, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'post_id' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as example values or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

  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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('comments for a specific Gelbooru post'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_posts' or 'get_deleted_posts' in terms of scope or functionality, which prevents a perfect score.

  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 versus alternatives, such as whether it's for fetching all comments on a post versus filtered searches. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tool comparisons, leaving usage context implied at best.

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

• get_deleted_postsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions the 'last_id' parameter for pagination-like behavior but fails to describe critical traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or the format/scope of returned data (e.g., are all deleted posts returned or only user-accessible ones?).

  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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and a key parameter. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any redundant or unnecessary wording, making it highly efficient.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity (retrieving deleted data with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses essential context like what 'deleted posts' entails (e.g., soft vs. hard deletion, timeframes), behavioral constraints, and output details, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

  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 50% (only 'last_id' has a description in the schema). The description adds meaning by explaining 'last_id' usage ('get everything deleted above that post ID'), which clarifies its pagination role. However, it doesn't address the 'limit' parameter at all, leaving half the parameters without semantic context beyond the schema.

  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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('deleted posts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'search_posts' by focusing specifically on deleted content, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

  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 versus alternatives like 'search_posts' or 'get_comments'. It mentions a parameter usage ('Pass last_id...') but offers no context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for tool selection.

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

• search_usersC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states the search functionality but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'pid' parameters but not explained), or what the output format looks like. For a search tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding the tool's purpose.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return values, how results are structured, or behavioral aspects like pagination (implied by 'pid' but not described). For a search tool with multiple parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to be 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?

  The description mentions searching by 'name or name pattern', which aligns with the 'name' and 'name_pattern' parameters in the schema. However, schema description coverage is only 50% (2 out of 4 parameters have descriptions), and the description doesn't add meaning for 'limit' or 'pid' beyond what the schema provides. It compensates slightly but not fully for the coverage gap, meeting the baseline for moderate schema coverage.

  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: searching Gelbooru users by name or name pattern. It specifies the resource (users) and the search criteria (name/name_pattern), making the verb+resource combination explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like search_posts or search_tags, which would require a 5.

  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 versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons with sibling tools like get_comments or get_character_tags that might involve user data. Usage is implied by the search functionality but not explicitly defined.

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

• search_tagsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions the tool is 'useful for' specific purposes but does not describe key behaviors such as pagination (implied by 'limit' and 'after_id'), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a search tool with multiple parameters.

  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 the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise second sentence highlighting use cases. It is appropriately sized with zero wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return values, pagination behavior, or error conditions, which are critical for a search tool. While the schema covers parameters well, the lack of behavioral and output information leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.

  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 high at 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning search methods ('by name, pattern, or ID') and use cases, but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or clarify interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'name' and 'name_pattern' differ in practice).

  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 action ('Search Gelbooru tags') and resources ('tags'), specifying it can search by name, pattern, or ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_posts' or 'search_users' by focusing on tags, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_character_tags'.

  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 provides implied usage contexts ('useful for autocomplete, tag counts, and tag type lookup'), which helps suggest when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_character_tags' or other search tools, and does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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

• get_character_tagsA
  3.8/5.0
  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: it fetches from multiple pages, analyzes top-scored posts, returns categorized tags with frequency scores, and implements 24-hour disk caching. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but covers substantial operational context.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality in the first clause. Each sentence adds value: the first explains the operation, the second details the output structure, and the third covers caching. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

  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 tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good operational context but lacks output format details. It explains what the tool returns conceptually (tag buckets with frequencies) but not the exact structure. Given the complexity of tag categorization, more output specification would help, though the caching disclosure adds value.

  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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'top highest-scored posts' which relates to the max_images parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('fetches the top highest-scored general/solo posts across multiple pages') and the resource ('character name'), with detailed output specification ('returns the most frequently occurring tags split into three semantic buckets'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_posts' or 'search_tags' by focusing on character-specific tag analysis rather than general searching.

  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 for character tag analysis but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_tags' or 'search_posts'. It mentions caching behavior which provides some context, but lacks direct guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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

• search_postsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 mentions support for 'all Gelbooru tag syntax' and lists various operators, which adds context about search capabilities. However, it does not cover important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps in transparency for a search tool.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and immediately diving into key features like tag syntax. Every sentence adds value by explaining capabilities, though it could be slightly more structured by separating syntax examples into bullet points for clarity.

  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 the complexity of a search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers search syntax and parameters well but lacks information on return values, pagination behavior, or error scenarios. Without annotations or an output schema, these gaps reduce overall completeness for effective agent use.

  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 all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the broader context of tag syntax and usage examples, but it does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema specifies, such as interactions between parameters or edge cases.

  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 ('Search Gelbooru posts') and the resources involved ('by tags, page, limit, or ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_tags or search_users. It provides concrete examples of what can be searched, making the purpose unambiguous and specific.

  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 usage through examples of tag syntax and parameters, suggesting when to use this tool for searching posts versus other tools. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct alternatives, such as distinguishing from get_deleted_posts or get_comments for specific post-related queries.

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

• build_promptA
  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 discloses key behavioral traits: it describes the internal process (calls get_character_tags with caching), output assembly (tags ordered by frequency), and caching behavior ('cached after first fetch'). It lacks details on error handling or performance, but covers core operations well.

  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, starting with the core purpose and following with implementation details. Every sentence adds value: the first states the output, the second explains the internal process and tag ordering. No wasted 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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, behavior, and output format. However, it lacks details on error cases or the exact format of the returned prompt string, leaving some gaps for an agent.

  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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that character_name uses Gelbooru tags and mentioning caching for max_images. 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 ('returns a ready-to-use image-generation prompt string') and resources ('given a character name'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning internal calls to get_character_tags and specifying the output format, which is unique among the listed siblings.

  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 ('given a character name') and implies usage for image-generation prompts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as when raw tag data from get_character_tags might be preferred.

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