Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_layout_categoriesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided. Description only states the action; does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, safety, or side effects. For a list tool, read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

  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?

  Single concise sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the purpose. Ideal length for a simple tool.

  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?

  No output schema. Description does not specify the format or structure of the returned layout categories (e.g., list of strings, objects). Adequate for a trivial list tool but could improve by hinting at output shape.

  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?

  Tool has zero parameters, so schema provides no semantic information. Description adds minimal but sufficient meaning: it names the resource being listed. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

  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?

  Description uses specific verb 'list' and clear resource 'elkjs layout categories'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_algorithms and list_layout_options by naming a distinct entity (categories).

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_algorithms or list_layout_options. No mention of prerequisites or context.

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

• validate_graphA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists validations performed and mentions warnings, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive. More detail on side effects would improve transparency.

  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?

  Single sentence that is front-loaded with purpose and enumerates checks efficiently. No wasted 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?

  No output schema exists, and description only mentions 'warnings' without detailing return format. With sibling tools, the context is clear, but more completeness on validation result would help.

  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?

  Single parameter 'graph' has 100% schema coverage with detailed schema description. The tool description adds little beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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?

  Description clearly states the tool validates a graph before layout, listing specific checks (duplicate ids, unknown parents, cycles, missing leaf sizes). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'layout_graph' by saying 'Does not run layout'.

  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?

  Description implies use before layout_graph with 'Validate a graph before layout' and explicitly says not to run layout. It could more directly state when not to use, but the sibling context makes it clear.

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

• list_layout_optionsA
  4/5.0
  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 states the tool lists options and filters, which is straightforward. However, it does not disclose whether it is read-only, performance, or access implications. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not detailed.

  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?

  Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, the second adds the filter. Efficient and front-loaded.

  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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and filter behavior. It might benefit from mentioning the return format or default behavior (e.g., returns all options if no query), but it is largely complete for its complexity.

  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 parameter. The tool description adds context by mentioning fields like 'id, group, etc.' but largely repeats the schema. Additional meaning is minimal.

  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 'List known ELK layout options' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_algorithms and list_layout_categories by naming the scope. The optional query filter is explicit.

  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 indicates when to use the tool (listing layout options) and the optional filter. It does not explicitly exclude use cases or compare to sibling tools, but the context signals and names imply differentiation.

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

• list_algorithmsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, but description implies a safe read-only operation. Provides examples of algorithms (layered, mrtree, force) to set expectations. No need for additional behavioral details.

  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?

  Two sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with purpose and actionable context (use before layout_graph). Every sentence earns its place.

  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 zero parameters, no output schema, and simple tool nature, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool lists, why to use it, and gives examples.

  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?

  No parameters; schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Description adds context (elkjs layout algorithms) beyond the empty schema, earning a baseline of 4.

  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?

  Clear verb+resource: 'List registered elkjs layout algorithms with metadata'. Distinguishes from sibling 'layout_graph' by specifying its preparatory role.

  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?

  Explicitly says 'Use before layout_graph to pick algorithm', providing clear usage context. Does not mention when not to use, but for a listing tool this is sufficient.

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

• layout_graphA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: absolute vs local coordinate modes, node x/y as top-left corner, edge sections as polyline segments, optional junctionPoints, and the effect of absoluteCoordinates. It also clarifies that all edges go under LCA.

  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 thorough and well-structured, starting with the overall result and then detailing each aspect. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence contributes useful information. Could be slightly more concise, but still effective.

  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 complexity of graph layout and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: input structure, hierarchy rules, coordinate modes, edge routing details, and the distinction between graph data and layout options. No obvious gaps.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the relationship between the two parameters (graph vs options), hierarchy constraints, LCA placement of edges, and details about the output coordinate system and edge routing structure.

  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 it computes graph layout using elkjs and returns node positions (x,y,width,height) and edge routing (sections with start/end/bend points). It distinguishes itself from siblings like validate_graph and list_algorithms by being the primary layout computation tool.

  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?

  Provides explicit guidance on how to pass graph structure and options separately, hierarchy rules (parent vs children), edge placement (LCA), and coordinate modes (absolute vs local). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_graph, which could be helpful.

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