Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• lenis_generate_setupA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint=true), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it generates code, which is consistent. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide; however, it details the output components (install, imports, code, CSS). No contradiction.

  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 a summary, parameter list, return description, and examples. It is not overly verbose given the number of parameters and options. However, the Args section largely duplicates the schema, which could be trimmed for slightly better conciseness.

  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?

  The tool has 5 parameters (all optional), a nested object, and no output schema. The description adequately explains the generated output content and provides examples for common use cases. It covers the complexity sufficiently, though specifying the output format (e.g., string of code with markdown) would enhance completeness.

  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 fully describes each parameter. The description's Args section mostly repeats schema info (defaults, types) and adds examples. This adds some clarity but does not substantially extend beyond the schema. The 'settings' object is described similarly in both.

  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 it generates complete Lenis setup code for a given framework, listing supported frameworks and optional integrations. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like debug or pattern creation.

  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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (e.g., 'Set up Lenis with GSAP in React') and includes examples. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements or direct comparison to alternatives, but the provided examples and parameter combinations effectively imply correct usage scenarios.

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

• lenis_optimize_performanceA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context about the return format (prioritized list with code examples) and input examples, which exceeds the annotation coverage without contradictions.

  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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence summary followed by Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Every part adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

  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 3 parameters with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior, inputs, and output format (prioritized list with code examples). Examples illustrate typical use cases, making it complete.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds examples for setup_description (e.g., 'React app with 50 GSAP animations') and clarifies the default values and return structure, providing extra meaning 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 clearly states it provides performance optimization recommendations for Lenis setups, with specific verb 'provides' and resource 'performance optimization recommendations'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like debugging or setup generation by focusing solely on optimization.

  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 performance optimization but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools (e.g., debug vs. optimize). No when-not guidance is provided.

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

• lenis_create_scroll_patternA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. Description adds output format details (HTML, CSS, JS, comments) which align with these hints.

  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?

  Extremely concise with clear sections (available patterns, args, returns, examples). No filler, every sentence adds value.

  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 3 parameters with full schema coverage, annotations present, and no output schema needed (description explains returns), the description fully covers the tool's purpose and usage.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds default values (framework: vanilla, with_gsap: true) and concrete examples mapping patterns to parameters, enhancing usability.

  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?

  Clearly states it generates production-ready code for Lenis scroll patterns, listing all available patterns. Distinct from sibling tools (debug, setup, API, optimization) by focusing on pattern generation.

  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?

  Provides explicit context for when to use (generating pattern code) with examples. Doesn't explicitly exclude cases, but sibling coverage implies alternatives exist for other needs.

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

• lenis_get_api_referenceA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's main role is to add context. It explains the return format (formatted API documentation with types, defaults, descriptions), which is valuable beyond annotations. No contradictions.

  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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, followed by parameter details, return description, and concrete examples. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes to understanding.

  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 simplicity (reading documentation) and the lack of output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, its parameters, return format, and usage examples. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by restating defaults, providing usage examples (e.g., 'lerp' for search), and clarifying the purpose of each parameter in the context of API lookups.

  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 it queries the complete Lenis API documentation, listing specific categories (settings, methods, events, properties). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on creating patterns, debugging, generation, or optimization, making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 provides examples and mentions filtering by category and search term, which helps the agent understand how to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct comparison to siblings, though the context of sibling names implies differentiation.

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

• lenis_debug_scroll_issueA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, indicating no side effects. The description adds context about being diagnostic and returning a diagnosis, which is consistent and adds moderate value beyond annotations.

  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 concise with four clear bullet points, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

  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 no output schema, the description includes a Returns section with expected output (diagnosis with causes, fixes, code snippets) and examples. For a 3-parameter tool, this is complete and helpful.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%. The description's Args section provides clear explanations for each parameter, including defaults and examples, adding meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'symptom' examples like 'janky on Safari').

  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 ('diagnoses') and clearly identifies the resource ('Lenis smooth scroll issues'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which focus on creating patterns, generating setup, API reference, and optimizing performance.

  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 indicates when to use the tool (for diagnosing scroll issues) and provides examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools give implicit context.

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