Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• searchC
  2.6/5.0
  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 'comprehensive information' but lacks details on traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, result format, or pagination. This leaves significant gaps for a search tool with no structured safety or behavior hints.

  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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it appropriately sized for its content, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations.

  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 of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what types of information are returned, how results are structured, or any 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'detail_level') with descriptions and an enum. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or context for the 'detail_level' options, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool performs a 'general search query to get comprehensive information on any topic', which clarifies its purpose as a search function. However, it's vague about what resources or domains it searches (e.g., code, APIs, documentation), and it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'find_apis' or 'get_documentation', leaving ambiguity about scope.

  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?

  No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_apis' or 'get_documentation'. The description implies it's for general searches, but without context on exclusions or specific use cases, it offers minimal direction for selection among siblings.

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

• check_deprecated_codeC
  2.9/5.0
  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 checks for 'deprecated features,' implying a read-only analysis, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured results, or handles errors. This leaves key behavioral traits unclear for a tool with no annotation support.

  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 purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding, earning a high score for conciseness and structure.

  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 of checking deprecated code (which may involve analysis and interpretation), the description is incomplete. There are no annotations, no output schema, and the description lacks details on return values, error handling, or operational constraints. This makes it inadequate for an AI agent to fully understand how to use the tool effectively in 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?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already documents both parameters ('code' and 'technology') clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

  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: 'Check if code or dependencies might be using deprecated features.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('code or dependencies'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_apis' or 'search', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'find_apis' or 'get_documentation', nor does it specify contexts where this tool is preferred or excluded. This lack of comparative guidance limits its utility for an AI agent in selecting the right tool.

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

• find_apisC
  2.9/5.0
  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 'find and evaluate APIs,' implying a read-only search operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves external API calls. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part contributing to understanding the core functionality, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 (involving API finding and evaluation) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'evaluate' entails, the format of results, or any constraints like data sources or evaluation criteria. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this leaves too many unanswered questions.

  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, so the schema already documents both parameters ('requirement' and 'context') adequately. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying how 'evaluate' relates to the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 as 'Find and evaluate APIs that could be integrated into a project,' which includes a specific verb ('find and evaluate') and resource ('APIs'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search' or 'get_documentation,' which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 like 'search' or 'get_documentation.' It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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

• get_documentationC
  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 what the tool does but fails to describe key traits such as response format, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

  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 purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core function, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, with no wasted information.

  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 tool with 2 parameters. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

  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, clearly documenting both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, but the schema adequately covers parameter semantics, meeting the baseline for high 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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resources ('documentation and usage examples for a specific technology, library, or API'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search' by focusing on documentation retrieval rather than general searching, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'find_apis' or 'check_deprecated_code'.

  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' or 'find_apis'. It implies usage for documentation needs but lacks explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios without clear direction.

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