Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_bug_reportsC
  2.9/5.0
  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 states 'Get bug reports', implying a read operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, making it inadequate for informed use.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

  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 the complexity of 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, or usage constraints, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly in a broader context.

  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 has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all 6 parameters, including enums and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately handles the parameter documentation.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('bug reports specifically from your FeedbackBasket projects'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_feedback' or 'search_feedback', which likely operate on similar data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

  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 such as 'get_feedback' or 'search_feedback'. It mentions 'specifically from your FeedbackBasket projects', but this doesn't clarify distinctions in usage context or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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

• get_feedbackC
  2.9/5.0
  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 only mentions 'filtering options' without explaining important behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, pagination details, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

  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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the core functionality.

  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?

  For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or provide behavioral context needed for proper usage. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

  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 mentions 'filtering options' which aligns with the schema's filtering parameters, but adds no specific semantic information beyond what the 100% schema coverage already provides. The schema descriptions fully document each parameter's purpose, enums, and defaults, so the description doesn't add meaningful value here.

  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 ('Get feedback') and resource ('from your FeedbackBasket projects'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'search_feedback' which appears to serve a similar filtering/search function, preventing a perfect score.

  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 like 'search_feedback' or 'get_bug_reports'. It mentions 'filtering options' but doesn't specify when these filters are appropriate or what scenarios warrant using this tool over siblings.

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

• list_projectsB
  3.2/5.0
  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 the API key access scope and summary statistics inclusion, which adds some context. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, sorting, or what happens with large result sets. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

  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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose, scope, and additional value ('summary statistics') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information. Every element of the sentence serves a clear purpose.

  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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers what the tool does and its scope, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like response format, pagination, or error conditions. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more complete context about what to expect from the operation.

  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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the absence of parameters. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. It adds value by clarifying what the tool returns ('summary statistics') without needing to detail inputs. The baseline for 0 parameters with full schema coverage is 4.

  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 ('List all') and resource ('FeedbackBasket projects'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies scope ('accessible by your API key') and includes additional detail ('with summary statistics'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_bug_reports or get_feedback, which prevents a perfect score.

  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 like search_feedback or get_feedback. It mentions the scope ('accessible by your API key') but doesn't explain when this listing approach is preferred over more targeted sibling tools. No explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative recommendations are included.

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

• search_feedbackB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching 'across all accessible projects' which hints at scope, but doesn't address important aspects like permissions needed, whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the response format looks like. The description is minimal and lacks crucial behavioral context.

  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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.

  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?

  For a search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what results look like, how they're structured, or what 'accessible projects' means in practice. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the operation's behavior and results.

  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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'text search' which aligns with the 'query' parameter but provides no additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

  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 verb ('Search') and resource ('feedback across all accessible projects'), specifying text-based search functionality. It distinguishes from 'get_feedback' (which likely retrieves specific feedback) and 'get_bug_reports' (which is category-specific), though it doesn't explicitly mention these siblings.

  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 for text-based searching of feedback, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_feedback' or 'get_bug_reports'. No guidance is provided about when not to use it or about prerequisites.

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