Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• server_statisticsD
  1.9/5.0
  Behavior1/5

  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 but fails completely. 'Enhanced server statistics' gives no indication of whether this is a read operation, a calculation, a report generation, or something else. It doesn't mention permissions required, rate limits, side effects, or what 'enhanced' means in practical terms. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the vague name.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  While technically concise (only two words), this is a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't provide enough information to be useful. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't convey meaningful information - 'Enhanced' is vague and 'server statistics' merely repeats the tool name. This isn't front-loaded with critical information; it's just insufficient.

  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 that this tool has no parameters, has an output schema (which helps), and has 100% schema coverage, the description should be more complete. However, 'Enhanced server statistics' fails to explain what the tool actually does, when to use it, or what makes it 'enhanced'. For a tool with zero parameters, the description could easily provide more context about what statistics are returned, their format, or their purpose. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description itself is inadequate.

  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 (schema description coverage is 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. While it could theoretically mention that no parameters are required, this is adequately covered by the structured schema information. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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

  Purpose2/5

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

  The description 'Enhanced server statistics' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'server_statistics' with the adjective 'Enhanced'. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., 'retrieve', 'generate', 'analyze') or what specific statistics it provides. While it distinguishes from the three sibling tools (which are all related to divination/consultation), it doesn't clearly articulate what makes these statistics 'enhanced' compared to basic statistics.

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

  Usage Guidelines1/5

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

  The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool would be appropriate. Given that the sibling tools are all divination-related (bibliomantic_consultation, get_hexagram_details, i_ching_divination), there's no indication of whether this tool is part of that same domain or serves a different purpose entirely.

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

• bibliomantic_consultationC
  2.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'enhanced content' and 'maintaining exact interface compatibility' which gives some implementation context, but doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it performs calculations, returns interpretations, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what 'consultation' entails. The description is too vague about the actual operation and output.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is brief (two sentences) and doesn't waste words, but it's not effectively structured. The first sentence is somewhat informative while the second is technical implementation detail that doesn't help an AI agent understand when or how to use the tool. While concise, it's not optimally front-loaded with the most important information for tool selection.

  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 tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) and only one parameter, the description is somewhat complete but inadequate. It mentions 'enhanced' and 'traditional I Ching elements' which provides some context, but doesn't explain what makes it different from i_ching_divination or what 'consultation' means. For a single-parameter tool with output schema, more could be done to explain the tool's unique value and use cases.

  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?

  The schema has 1 parameter (query) with 0% description coverage in the schema itself. The tool description provides no information about what the 'query' parameter should contain, its format, or examples of valid inputs. For a single parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter's purpose and expected content, which it fails to do.

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

  Purpose2/5

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

  The description states 'Enhanced bibliomantic consultation with full traditional I Ching elements' which provides some purpose context, but it's vague about what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify the action (consult? analyze? interpret?) or what resource it operates on. The second sentence about 'maintaining exact interface compatibility' is technical rather than functional. This is better than a tautology but lacks the specific verb+resource clarity needed for high scores.

  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?

  There are no explicit guidelines about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (get_hexagram_details, i_ching_divination, server_statistics). The description mentions 'enhanced' and 'full traditional I Ching elements' which might imply this is a more comprehensive option than i_ching_divination, but this is only implied rather than stated. No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative recommendations are provided.

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

• i_ching_divinationC
  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. It mentions 'enhanced' divination and 'richer content,' but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it has side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. The backward compatibility note is useful but insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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 brief and front-loaded, with two sentences that convey the main points efficiently. There's no unnecessary verbosity, and each sentence adds value (method details and compatibility). However, it could be more structured with clearer separation of features.

  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 tool's complexity (divination with a method) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and method. However, with no annotations and low parameter coverage, it lacks details on behavior and inputs. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in context.

  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?

  The input schema has one parameter ('query') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what the 'query' parameter is for, its format, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.

  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 'I Ching divination with traditional three-coin method and changing lines,' which provides a general purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'enhanced' and 'richer content' mean, and it doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bibliomantic_consultation' or 'get_hexagram_details.' The mention of backward compatibility adds context but doesn't sharpen the core purpose.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bibliomantic_consultation' or 'get_hexagram_details.' The description implies it's for I Ching divination but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, it offers minimal usage direction.

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

• get_hexagram_detailsC
  2.7/5.0
  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 'enhanced' details and 'improving content quality,' which suggests this might return more or better data than a basic version, but doesn't specify what that entails (e.g., format, structure, or performance). It also doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, error handling, or any rate limits, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

  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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with key information ('Enhanced hexagram details...'), making it efficient. Every sentence adds value: the first specifies content, and the second addresses compatibility. There's no unnecessary repetition or fluff, though it could be slightly more structured 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 tool has 1 simple parameter, an output schema (which handles return values), and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and content enhancements but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and parameter meaning. For a tool with low complexity, it meets basic needs but leaves gaps that could confuse an AI agent, especially without annotations to fill in behavioral aspects.

  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 doesn't mention the 'hexagram_number' parameter at all, and schema description coverage is 0%, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. However, with only 1 parameter and an output schema present, the baseline is 3 as the schema handles the input definition adequately, and the output schema can cover return values. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions but doesn't severely hinder understanding due to simplicity.

  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 provides 'enhanced hexagram details' with specific content elements (traditional Chinese names, Unicode symbols, rich commentary), which gives a general purpose. However, it doesn't specify the exact verb (retrieve? fetch? display?) or clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'i_ching_divination' which might also provide hexagram information. The mention of 'backward compatibility' suggests this might replace or enhance an existing tool, but this isn't explicitly stated.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'i_ching_divination' or 'bibliomantic_consultation' is provided. The description implies it's for getting detailed hexagram information, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The backward compatibility note hints at context for existing users but doesn't help an AI agent decide when to invoke it.

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