Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_game_assetsC
  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 only adds the 'local registry' detail, implying an offline search, but does not disclose return format, limitations, or any 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, focused sentence with no redundant wording. It is extremely concise and gets the core purpose across immediately.

  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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not explain parameter semantics, result format, or how to construct an effective search. This is insufficient for a multi-parameter search tool.

  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 shows three parameters (tags, query, commercialOnly) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain how these parameters interact or what each one filters, leaving the agent to infer entirely from their names.

  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 'Search the local registry of game-development resource sources,' giving a specific verb and resource. The 'local registry' qualifier effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_live_assets'.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_live_assets' or 'find_game_assets'. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or a preferred context.

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

• check_licenseB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the conservative nature of the rules but fails to state what the output is (e.g., allowed/denied, risk level), how unknown licenses are handled, or what exactly 'known license' means. This leaves significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

  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, focused sentence that immediately communicates the tool's core function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the essential information.

  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?

  Despite the tool's low complexity, the description is incomplete in context. With no output schema or annotations, the description should explain return values, edge cases (e.g., unknown licenses), and how the 'conservative' rules affect classification. The current description leaves these operational details unspecified.

  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 schema has one required string parameter 'license' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description only mentions 'a known license', which implies the input is a license identifier but does not clarify the expected format (e.g., SPDX ID, full name) or provide examples. The description does not adequately compensate for the missing schema documentation.

  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 'Classify a known license using conservative game-commercial-use rules' clearly states the verb (classify), the resource (license), and the specific criteria (game-commercial-use rules). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_open_source_projects or generate_attribution by focusing on license classification for a particular use case.

  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 when to use the tool (when you need to classify a license under game-commercial rules) but does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or a preferred context. It is not devoid of guidance, but it lacks clear differentiation from sibling tools.

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

• generate_attributionB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'conservative attribution/CREDITS entry', which hints at a cautious approach, but does not state whether this writes/modifies files, what permissions are needed, whether it is reversible, or what the output format is.

  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 entire description is one focused sentence, action-first, with no filler or repetition. It earns every word and immediately communicates the tool's core function.

  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?

  While purpose and timing are clear, the missing behavioral and parameter information leaves significant gaps. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more detail about return values, side effects, and parameter usage to be fully actionable.

  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 provides no parameter-level details. It references 'a resource' generically without mapping to the actual parameters (name, sourceUrl, license, etc.) or explaining their roles, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names.

  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 ('Generate') with a clear object (attribution/CREDITS entry) and a temporal condition ('after its license has been identified'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search, inspection, and license-checking tools.

  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 phrase 'after its license has been identified' provides explicit sequencing guidance, implying this tool should be used only after license identification. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the timing context is clear and useful.

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

• search_open_source_projectsB
  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. It only advises the user to inspect the license before reuse, which is a human action, not a tool behavior. It does not disclose search sorting, result format, return values, or any limitations of the tool.

  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 concise sentences. The first front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds a relevant license-reminder warning. No wasted words.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters, this description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values or parameter semantics, and the license advice doesn't compensate for the missing contextual information. The tool likely pairs with siblings like inspect_repository and check_license, but that relationship is not mentioned.

  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 provides no explanation of the query, limit, language, or minStars parameters. With no parameter semantics in the description, users must infer or experiment with the meaning of each field, which is inadequate for a 4-parameter tool.

  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 action (search) and resource (GitHub repositories) with a specific scope (game-development code), distinguishing it from asset-focused sibling tools like search_game_assets. The verb 'search' is specific and the resource is 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 implies a clear usage context: searching for reusable game-development code. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the purpose is distinct enough that the context is clear. The license warning also provides a practical usage guideline.

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

• get_asset_filesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool 'returns' links and metadata, implying a read-only operation, and clarifies it does not mirror the asset. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The transparency is adequate for a simple retrieval but not comprehensive.

  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 (14 words), front-loaded with the verb 'Return' and immediately stating the object. Every word adds value: 'official provider-hosted' specifies source, 'for a selected asset' indicates prerequisite, and 'without mirroring it' clarifies behavior. No redundancy or fluff.

  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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'file metadata' includes, what format/resolution options are available, how limit works, or what the response structure looks like. The high-level description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with correct parameter values and interpret the result.

  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 input schema has 5 parameters (assetId, limit, format, provider, resolution) with 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'file metadata' and 'download links' but does not explain the meaning or usage of any parameter. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics from names alone. This is a significant gap.

  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 function: 'Return official provider-hosted download links and file metadata for a selected asset without mirroring it.' It identifies the specific verb (Return), the resource (download links and metadata), and the scope (selected asset), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_game_assets or list_asset_providers. The additional qualifier 'without mirroring it' adds a semantic boundary that prevents confusion with potential download/copy operations.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but it implies a workflow: 'for a selected asset' suggests it follows an asset selection step (likely from a search tool). There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, so the usage context is implied rather than clearly articulated. This meets the minimum viable standard but lacks explicit guidance.

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

• inspect_repositoryA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates 'public metadata', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or what happens if the repository does not exist. It also doesn't clarify what 'detected license' means or how detection works, leaving uncertainty for the agent.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose and input format. There is no filler or repetition, making it highly concise and easy to parse quickly.

  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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what the tool returns (public metadata and license) and the input format. It could be improved by mentioning the read-only nature or typical use cases, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

  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 has 0% description coverage, but the description mentions 'Accepts owner/name', which clarifies the expected format for the repository parameter. This adds meaning beyond the schema's regex pattern. However, it doesn't explain the exact pattern or edge cases (e.g., leading/trailing whitespace), so it partially compensates.

  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 function: inspecting a GitHub repository's public metadata and detected license. The verb 'inspect' is specific, and the resource (GitHub repository) is explicit, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_license that focus solely on license checking.

  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 when to use it (when you need repository metadata and license) but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions. With sibling tools like check_license available, explicit guidance on choosing between them would be beneficial, but the context is clear enough for a basic use case.

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

• search_live_assetsA
  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 carries the full burden. It discloses that providers may be live APIs or curated catalogs and that results preserve source and license provenance, adding useful context. But it omits details like rate limits, error behavior, or whether any side effects exist.

  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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It covers purpose and provenance but lacks return format, parameter semantics, and usage nuances, leaving an agent with significant gaps for correct invocation.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the provider parameter ('one supported asset provider') and does not explain limit, query, or categories. This adds minimal value 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 specifies the action 'Search' and the resource 'one supported asset provider', adding context about live APIs/verified catalogs and provenance. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_game_assets and search_open_source_projects.

  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?

  It states the tool searches a single provider, implying the user must specify one provider, and the provider enum reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like search_game_assets or find_game_assets.

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

• find_game_assetsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds context like commercial/license filters and explainable match reasons, but doesn't cover side effects, rate limits, pagination, or authentication. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit, and there's no mention of how results are ranked or what the response format is.

  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 no fluff. The first sentence states the core function, and the second gives usage context. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the primary purpose and usage context but leaves out details about return format, ranking explanation, pagination, and parameter specifics. It's adequate for a basic understanding but not fully complete.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'commercial/license filters' (mapping to commercialOnly, allowShareAlike, allowAttribution) and 'all supported asset providers' (mapping to providers), but it fails to explain key parameters like limit, perProviderLimit, categories, and query. For an 8-parameter tool, this is insufficient.

  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 searches across all supported asset providers, applies filters, and returns ranked results. It further differentiates itself from sibling tools by noting it's the preferred tool when the user doesn't name a source site, which distinguishes it from provider-specific search tools.

  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 a clear use case: 'preferred when the user describes the asset they need without naming a source site.' This implies when a source is named, other tools are more appropriate, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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

• list_asset_providersA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds context about output (classification of providers), but does not state whether the list is static/dynamic, if any network calls occur, or authentication needs. At least it does not contradict anything.

  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 with no wasted words or filler. It front-loads the verb and resource and packs useful categorization info into the remainder.

  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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and distinguishing output attribute. It could mention the return format more explicitly, but the core is clear and sufficiently 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?

  The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description has nothing to add. Baseline 4 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List supported asset providers') and adds clarifier ('whether each is a live API or verified catalog'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling search tools by focusing on enumeration rather than searching.

  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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_live_assets or find_game_assets. The use case is only implied by the word 'list', but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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