Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• add_scriptB
  3.4/5.0
  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 only says 'create and register' without explaining side effects, error behavior (e.g., if the script already exists), or whether registration modifies project files in a way that could be destructive or require specific permissions.

  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, efficient sentence that conveys the core action without waste. The acronym 'YYP' is not expanded, which slightly hurts clarity for agents unfamiliar with GameMaker terminology, but overall it is appropriately terse.

  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 three-parameter creation tool, the description names the core action and target resource. However, it omits key context such as expected project structure, prerequisites like an existing project, failure modes, and what registering in the YYP actually does—leaving the agent with only a high-level 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% for all three parameters, so the description need not repeat them. However, it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—like the relationship between scriptName and the YYP registration or how code defaults are applied.

  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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'GML script', then adds 'register it in the YYP' to indicate the integration step. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_sprite_from_images or add_object, which target different resource types.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage when a new script is needed but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned, so the agent gets only inferred context.

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

• add_objectA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description is the sole source. It discloses that the tool creates a .yy file and registers it in the project, which are meaningful side effects. However, it does not address overwrite behavior, project prerequisites, or error conditions, leaving gaps in behavioral 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 a single sentence that leads with the primary action and packs in the file type, optional events, and registration. No filler or redundancy.

  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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It covers the core action but omits prerequisites (e.g., project must exist) and return/error behavior. Still, the schema descriptions fill in parameter details, making it minimally viable.

  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 already covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only minor context ('optional event stubs' aligns with the events parameter) and does not explain parameter syntax or relationships beyond the schema.

  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 ('Create'), names the resource ('GameMaker object .yy file'), and notes additional scope ('optional event stubs', 'register it in the project'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_script or add_sprite_from_images.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided; it does not mention alternatives or exclusions. The intended use is implied by the action (creating an object), but the description lacks explicit direction on when to choose this tool over add_script or add_sprite_from_images.

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

• add_sprite_from_imagesA
  3.7/5.0
  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. It only says 'Import frames... and register it' without disclosing side effects like whether an existing sprite is overwritten, what happens if the directory is missing, or any permissions needed. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with clear side effects.

  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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb 'Import' and contains no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without fluff.

  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 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose but omits behavioral context such as project requirements, overwrite behavior, and error handling. It is not completely inadequate but has clear gaps in side-effect disclosure.

  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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description (e.g., 'Directory containing PNG frames', 'Absolute path to the GameMaker project directory'). The tool description adds minimal additional semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

  The description clearly states the verb ('Import'), the resource ('sprite'), and the source ('frames from a directory'), and adds 'register it in the project' to convey full scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_script and add_object by being specific to sprite creation from images.

  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 implies when to use this tool (when importing a sprite from image frames) and the sibling tool names provide natural context for alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of add_script or add_object' or mention any exclusions, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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

• create_projectA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose the 'does not exist' condition, which is useful, but it fails to mention what happens when the directory already exists (e.g., error, no-op) or whether it creates intermediate directories. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

  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 unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action.

  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?

  For a simple creation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is the ambiguous handling of an existing directory, but overall it provides adequate context for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

  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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% schema coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond referencing the directory and name. The baseline of 3 applies.

  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 'Create' with a clear resource 'GameMaker YYP project' and a condition ('if it does not exist'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like add_sprite_from_images, which operate on existing projects.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies it is for creating new projects and the 'if it does not exist' condition gives some context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or what happens if the directory already exists. Sibling tools are not referenced.

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

• list_resourcesA
  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 burden. It clearly states the action (list names) and source (YYP file), but does not disclose behavior such as sorting, error handling, or whether it reads from disk each time.

  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, front-loaded with the primary verb and object. There is no wasted text.

  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?

  For a simple list tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys the core function and source, though it could optionally mention that the return will be a list of names.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by mentioning 'by type' (matching the kind parameter) and 'from the YYP file' (matching projectDir), but does not add new information beyond the schema.

  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 ('List'), identifies the resource ('resource names'), and the source ('from the YYP file'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools which all create/add resources.

  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 implies the tool is for reading/listing resources, while all sibling tools are for creation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or mention any limitations.

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