Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_documentation_pageB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does not mention what happens if the URL is not indexed, what 'complete' means in terms of response size, whether the URL must be canonical, or any error conditions. The phrase 'by URL' hints at a direct lookup but lacks depth about side effects or limitations.

  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, concise sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It includes the core action and key parameter mechanism, making it easy to parse. There is no unnecessary detail.

  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?

  The tool is simple (one param), but the description omits essential context. Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the 'complete indexed documentation page' contains (e.g., HTML content, metadata, links), but it does not. It also gives no indication of how the response is structured or what errors might occur. The description is minimally viable but leaves significant gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only restates that a URL is used ('Retrieve ... by URL') without adding meaning beyond the schema's 'url' property with format 'uri'. It does not clarify what constitutes a valid documentation page URL, how the URL should be encoded, or whether it must match a previously crawled URL.

  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 resource ('complete indexed documentation page'), and clearly identifies the input ('by URL'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools: crawl_documentation (creates the index), search_documentation (finds pages), and crawler_status (monitors crawling). It fully states what the tool does.

  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. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the page must already be crawled/indexed), no exclusions, and no comparison to search_documentation. The only implied usage is 'have a URL, get the page,' but this is not enough to navigate among siblings.

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

• search_documentationA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only search operation and hints at index availability, but does not explicitly state side effects, failure modes, or return behavior. The prerequisite helps but lacks full 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?

  The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized 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?

  For a simple search tool, the description covers purpose and a prerequisite, but lacks return format and behavior when no index is present. Given no output schema or annotations, more detail would be expected, but it is not entirely inadequate.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is only 50% (query described, limit not). The description does not add any parameter information beyond the schema. The 'limit' parameter remains unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

  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 and resource: 'Search the locally crawled documentation index.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like crawl_documentation and get_documentation_page by specifying the resource (index) and the action (search).

  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 a clear prerequisite: 'Crawl first if no index is available,' indicating when to use the crawler alternative. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use get_documentation_page or crawler_status, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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

• crawler_statusA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states a read-only 'Show' operation, which implies non-destructiveness. It also reveals the specific data points (configuration, index existence) that the tool reports, offering transparent expectations. However, it does not detail output format or any implicit limitations, but for a simple status tool this is adequate.

  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 of about 15 words. It front-loads the verb and resource, contains no filler, and effectively communicates the core functionality. Every word 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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does. It covers the key aspects: showing configuration and index existence. The sibling context further clarifies its role, and no additional details are necessary for basic invocation.

  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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool reports, which is not strictly about parameters but provides context for interpreting the tool's output. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that without needing to compensate for undocumented parameters.

  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 with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('active crawler configuration' and 'whether a local documentation index exists'). It is distinct from sibling tools like crawl_documentation (action), search_documentation (search), and get_documentation_page (retrieve), making its purpose obvious.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools. While the context of sibling names is given, the description itself offers no usage direction.

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

• crawl_documentationA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool crawls a site and saves an index, and implies that refresh controls rebuilding. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as network load, duration, or whether the old index is destroyed on refresh.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise usage hint. Every word contributes meaning; there is no fluff or repetition.

  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 and lack of output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It explains what the tool does and a key usage parameter. It could mention that the resulting index is used by sibling search tools, but that is implied by the name and sibling context.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the refresh parameter's behavior ('reuse an existing index'), which goes beyond the schema's simple description. The maxPages parameter is left to the schema, but the overall benefit justifies a 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?

  The description clearly states the action (crawl), the resource (configured documentation site), and the outcome (save a local searchable index). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crawler_status, search_documentation, and get_documentation_page, which perform different functions.

  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 a specific usage hint: 'Use refresh=false to reuse an existing index.' This gives clear context for when to use the parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the purpose inherently separates it from siblings.

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