Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generateE2ETestsC
  2.1/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., file creation), required authentication, or return value. This is a critical gap for a tool that likely modifies the file system.

  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?

  The description is very brief (1 line in Spanish) but omits essential information. It front-loads the purpose but is not adequately informative for an AI agent.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return values, side effects, or parameter details, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain what configPath or promptOverride mean. It only mentions 'in the configured path,' which vaguely hints at configPath but provides no concrete semantics.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states it generates E2E Cypress tests in the configured path, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'generateRestTests' by focusing on E2E Cypress, but does not explicitly contrast them.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generateRestTests, nor are there any prerequisites or context for invocation.

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

• exportETPAsWordC
  2.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits (e.g., file creation, overwrite behavior). The mention of 'using docx' is a technical detail that does not clarify side effects or requirements.

  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?

  The description is too brief, sacrificing essential information for brevity. A single sentence is insufficient for a tool with two undocumented parameters and no annotations.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the lack of schema descriptions, output schema, and annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits crucial details about return values, error handling, and parameter usage.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of 'configPath' or 'outputFileName'. The agent has no semantic understanding of these parameters.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the action (export) and the resource (ETP) and output format (Word). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'exportETPAsExcel', which could lead to confusion for an AI agent deciding between them.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'exportETPAsExcel'. The description lacks context on prerequisites or decision criteria.

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

• autoCompleteRfCuC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions completing a file, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwrites, authorization needs) or details on the operation's impact.

  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 a single sentence with no superfluous content, but it is too brief and sacrifices necessary detail for conciseness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description fails to provide sufficient context about the expected input format, output, or behavioral implications. It leaves many gaps for an AI agent.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters configPath and requirementsPath. No parameter information is provided, leaving the AI without guidance on input meanings.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description states it completes RF/CU/pasos in rf-cu.md, specifying a verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like export or test generation, leaving some ambiguity.

  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 alternatives or when not to use it. The context of when to invoke autoCompleteRfCu is missing.

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

• exportETPAsExcelC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only notes the use of a template and library. It does not indicate if the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or handles errors (e.g., missing configPath).

  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 a single sentence with no redundancy, but it lacks necessary details. It is concise in length but incomplete in content, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

  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 has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain what ETP is, what the configPath expects (file path? directory?), and the output format behavior (e.g., overwrite or create new). This information is minimal for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'configPath' or 'outputFileName'. Both parameters are strings with no additional context, so the description adds no semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the action 'Exporta el ETP a Excel' (exports ETP to Excel) and mentions the technology used (exceljs y plantilla configurada). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'exportETPAsWord' by specifying the output format, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like exportETPAsWord. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or common scenarios described.

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

• generateRestTestsC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavior. It does not disclose whether tests are appended or overwritten, if any setup is required, or what the return value is.

  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?

  The description is a single sentence, but it is underspecified rather than concise. Important details are missing, making it insufficient.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the lack of schema descriptions, annotations, and output schema, the description fails to provide an adequate understanding of the tool's operation and side effects.

  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 only parameter, configPath, lacks schema description, and the description only vaguely mentions 'the configured path' without explaining its format or purpose.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description specifies that the tool generates API Rest Assured tests in a configured path, which clearly identifies the action and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like generateE2ETests by mentioning 'Rest Assured'.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what it does.

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