Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_abilityC
  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 mentions the return content but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the ability name is invalid), performance characteristics, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a lookup tool.

  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 front-loads the core action ('look up an ability by name') and adds necessary detail about the return value. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

  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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return value but lacks details on usage context, error behavior, or output format, which would be helpful for 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the single 'name' parameter with examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

  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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('ability by name'), and specifies the return value ('full description of what the ability does in battle'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'list_dangerous_abilities' or 'search_pokemon_by_ability', but the focus on individual ability lookup is clear.

  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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_ability' over sibling tools like 'list_dangerous_abilities' or 'search_pokemon_by_ability', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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

• get_moveC
  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 the return data (power, accuracy, etc.) but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries a database or API.

  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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core action and return data in one efficient sentence. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating lookup purpose from return details for even clearer readability.

  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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return data but lacks completeness in behavioral aspects like error cases or usage context, which would be helpful for an agent to operate 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single required parameter 'name' with examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it's for move lookup, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('a move by name'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_priority_moves' or 'get_type_effectiveness', which might also involve move-related queries.

  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. It doesn't mention siblings like 'search_priority_moves' for filtering moves by priority or 'get_type_effectiveness' for type-related data, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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

• list_dangerous_abilitiesC
  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 mentions what types of abilities are listed ('immunities, damage reduction, status reflection, etc.') but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list structure, fields included), pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a listing tool 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.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List abilities that can significantly affect battle outcomes') and provides clarifying examples. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameter or output.

  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 moderate complexity (listing with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and hints at scope through examples, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral constraints, which are important for a tool with no structured output or annotation support.

  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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'category'. The schema's description fully documents the parameter's purpose, possible values, and default. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

  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 tool's purpose: 'List abilities that can significantly affect battle outcomes' with specific examples (immunities, damage reduction, status reflection). It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('abilities'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_ability' or 'search_pokemon_by_ability' beyond the listing focus.

  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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_ability' (which might retrieve details about a specific ability) or 'search_pokemon_by_ability' (which might find Pokémon with certain abilities), leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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

• search_pokemon_by_abilityC
  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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only search operation but doesn't disclose critical details like whether the search is case-sensitive, if it returns partial matches, what format the results take (e.g., list of names or full objects), or any rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it 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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective use. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., Pokemon names, IDs, or full details), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., max results). For a search tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent guessing about the response format.

  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, with the 'ability' parameter clearly documented. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that the search is based on 'a specific ability', but doesn't provide additional semantics like valid ability names, examples, or search behavior (e.g., exact vs. substring matching). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('Pokemon'), and specifies the search criterion ('that can have a specific ability'). It distinguishes itself from generic 'get_pokemon' by focusing on ability-based filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_dangerous_abilities' which might have overlapping functionality.

  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 'get_pokemon' (which might retrieve individual Pokemon data) or 'list_dangerous_abilities' (which might list abilities rather than Pokemon). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with sibling tools.

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

• get_type_effectivenessB
  3.1/5.0
  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 the tool 'calculates' a multiplier, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's based on game mechanics, returns a numeric value, or handles edge cases like dual types. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety 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?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly states what the tool does, 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.

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (calculating type interactions) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but fails to explain the calculation method, return format, or error handling, leaving gaps that could hinder effective use by an AI agent.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents the two parameters (attack_type and defend_types) with clear examples. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining type validity or format constraints, but this is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

  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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('type effectiveness multiplier'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'get_move' or 'get_pokemon', which might also involve type-related calculations, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. It doesn't mention if this is for battle simulations, data analysis, or other contexts, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'get_move' that might overlap in functionality. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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

• search_priority_movesB
  3.2/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool finds moves but doesn't describe how results are returned (e.g., list format, pagination), potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs), or what 'all moves' entails (e.g., completeness, filtering). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

  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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly address purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function, and the second provides context. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

  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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and a usage hint but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it's adequate for a simple search 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'min_priority' fully documented in the schema (type, default, description). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining priority values or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract.

  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 tool's purpose: 'Find all moves with priority (moves that go before normal moves).' It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('moves with priority'), and explains what priority means. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_move' or 'search_pokemon_by_ability' beyond the priority focus.

  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 provides implied usage guidance: 'Useful for finding options when you need to outspeed an opponent.' This suggests when to use it (for speed advantage scenarios) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. No comparison to sibling tools is made, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

• get_itemB
  3.3/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a 'full description' but does not clarify format, length, or potential errors (e.g., if the item name is invalid). For a read operation with no annotations, this leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

  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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and resource, and the second specifies the return value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys necessary information without 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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the purpose and return type but lacks details on behavioral traits and usage guidelines. For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the 'name' parameter with examples. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as formatting constraints or case sensitivity. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

  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 with a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('held item by name'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on items rather than abilities, moves, or Pokémon. It explicitly mentions what the tool returns ('full description of what the item does in battle'), which adds clarity beyond just retrieval.

  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. It does not mention sibling tools like 'get_ability' or 'get_move', nor does it specify scenarios where looking up an item is preferable to other queries. The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

• get_pokemonA
  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 full burden. It discloses the return content (base stats, types, etc.), which adds behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the lookup is case-sensitive. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the absence of 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Look up a Pokemon by name') and efficiently lists the returned attributes. Every part of the sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

  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?

  Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for a simple lookup operation. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return structure, but the listed attributes provide adequate context for basic use.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'name,' providing examples like 'pikachu.' The description does not add further parameter details beyond what the schema already states. With high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is high, and the description does not detract, but it also does not enhance parameter understanding 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 the specific action ('Look up a Pokemon by name') and resource ('Pokemon'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_ability, get_item, or search_pokemon_by_ability. It specifies the exact scope of what is retrieved (base stats, types, abilities with descriptions, weight, competitive tier), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

  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 by stating 'Look up a Pokemon by name,' which suggests this tool is for retrieving details of a specific Pokemon. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like search_pokemon_by_ability or list_dangerous_abilities, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is present but limited to implied context.

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