Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• read_documentationA
  4.4/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: URL domain/format requirements, pagination/truncation handling for long documents, output format details (markdown with preserved structure), and practical usage patterns. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but provides 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 well-structured with clear sections (Usage, URL Requirements, Example URLs, Output Format, Handling Long Documents) that make it easy to scan. While somewhat lengthy, each section adds value. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, and the content earns its place by providing necessary operational guidance.

  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 complexity (URL validation, pagination, format conversion) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage constraints, examples, output format, handling of edge cases (long documents), and parameter interaction. No significant gaps remain 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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about how parameters work together (start_index for pagination, max_length for truncation) and provides example URLs, but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's in the parameter descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

  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: 'Fetch and convert an AWS documentation page to markdown format.' This specifies both the action (fetch and convert) and the resource (AWS documentation page), with the format conversion being a key distinguishing feature. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'search_documentation' by focusing on retrieving and formatting specific pages rather than searching.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description provides explicit usage guidance in multiple sections. It specifies when to use this tool (for AWS docs from docs.aws.amazon.com ending in .html) and when to make multiple calls (for long documents). It also mentions alternatives implicitly by distinguishing from sibling tools and provides practical handling options for long documents (continue reading or stop early).

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

• recommendA
  4.4/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns recommendations in four categories (Highly Rated, New, Similar, Journey), explains what each category means, and details the result structure (URL, title, context). It also clarifies that recommendations are based on the given URL and might include pages not in search results. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits or error conditions.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (Usage, Recommendation Types, When to Use, Finding New Features, Result Interpretation), making it easy to scan. However, it includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating parameter info in Args/Returns sections) and could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

  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 moderate complexity (one parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is highly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage scenarios, recommendation categories, how to interpret results, and includes a practical example. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values extensively, and it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

  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 the single 'url' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it repeats the parameter description ('URL of the AWS documentation page to get recommendations for') and provides examples of how to use it (e.g., using a service's welcome page URL). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

  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: 'Get content recommendations for an AWS documentation page' and 'provides recommendations for related AWS documentation pages based on a given URL.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools (read_documentation, search_documentation) by focusing on recommendations rather than reading or searching content.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'After reading a documentation page to find related content,' 'When exploring a new AWS service,' 'To find alternative explanations,' 'To discover the most popular pages,' and 'To find newly released information.' It also includes a specific workflow for finding new features, making it clear when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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

• search_documentationA
  4.4/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it searches documentation, returns ranked results with URLs/titles/context, provides facets for filtering, and includes a query ID. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which are minor gaps.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (Usage, Search Tips, Result Interpretation) and is appropriately sized. However, it includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating parameter info in 'Args' that's already in the schema) and could be slightly more front-loaded, though overall it's efficient.

  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 complexity (search with filters), no annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage, behavioral aspects, and result interpretation thoroughly. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them extensively, making it well-rounded.

  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 by briefly mentioning parameters in the 'Args' section and providing usage examples in search tips, but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what's in the structured data.

  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 searches AWS documentation using the official API, specifying the resource (AWS documentation) and distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'read_documentation' (which likely reads specific pages) and 'recommend' (which may suggest content). It explicitly mentions searching across all AWS documentation for pages matching a search phrase.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you don't have a specific URL') and includes detailed search tips with examples. It also explains how to interpret results and use facets for refining searches, offering clear alternatives and context for effective usage.

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