Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• danbooru_get_tag_implicationsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it queries only antecedent direction, that implications mean auto-adding of tags, and that an empty list is valid. No contradictions. Adds useful behavioral context 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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, distinction from sibling, mechanism, parameter explanation, return format, and examples. It is concise yet thorough, with each sentence adding 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 the annotations and output schema (described in text), the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, parameter roles, and examples. It is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

  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 already has detailed descriptions for each parameter (tag, limit, response_format) with examples and constraints. The description adds some example usage but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool gets the implication chain for a tag, explaining the 'A -> B' auto-add mechanism. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'danbooru_get_character_profile' by specifying this tool queries only the antecedent direction, while sibling queries both directions.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly tells when to use this tool (for antecedent implications) and when not to (for reverse direction, use character profile). It also mentions that an empty list is a valid result, guiding interpretation. Examples further clarify usage.

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

• danbooru_lookup_tagA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it uses Danbooru's autocomplete endpoint as primary, falls back to tags.json, resolves aliases, performs prefix matching, and describes the return format (markdown/JSON with detailed schema). 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is well-structured with clear sections: utility statement, explicit exclusions, technical notes on endpoints, parameter details, return schema, and examples. It is front-loaded with the purpose. While it is somewhat lengthy, the complexity of the tool (multiple endpoints, fallback logic, return formats) justifies the length. 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 the tool's complexity (multiple endpoints, many parameters, output schema provided), the description is fully complete. It covers all necessary behavioral details, parameter semantics, return format, and includes explicit examples. The output schema is included, and the description leaves no ambiguity about how the tool behaves in various scenarios.

  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 already provides good descriptions for all parameters (high coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the autocomplete behavior, the role of auto_resolve, and giving examples of usage beyond what the schema provides. It also restates key parameter constraints clearly.

  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: 'find or verify a tag's exact canonical name.' It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating it is NOT for character analysis and names the appropriate alternatives (danbooru_get_character_profile, danbooru_search_character). The verb 'find/verify' and resource 'tag name' are specific and 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 clear when-to-use guidance: for finding/verifying tag names and listing related tag variants. It explicitly says not to use this for character analysis and names the correct alternatives. However, it does not explicitly address when to use this over other siblings like danbooru_get_tag_implications or danbooru_get_wiki_page, but the context is clear enough.

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

• danbooru_get_character_profileA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description discloses key behavioral details beyond annotations: it aggregates data sources in parallel, each degrades gracefully, and auto_resolve corrects misspelled tags. Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent and complemented by this context.

  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 and front-loaded with key information. It is longer than minimal but every section (recommendation, capabilities, data sources, parameters, return schema, examples) adds value. Could be slightly tightened in wording.

  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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is completely thorough: it explains data sources, graceful degradation, auto_resolve behavior, return schema fields, error handling, and provides examples. No gaps remain.

  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?

  Despite schema description coverage being 0%, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter (tag, limit, auto_resolve, response_format) with behavior, defaults, and examples. It adds meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

  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 returns everything in one call for a character/tag lookup, listing visual traits, wiki description, multilingual aliases, and implications. It explicitly recommends it as the first choice, distinguishing it from sibling tools like danbooru_get_tag_implications or danbooru_get_wiki_page.

  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 explicitly recommends this tool as the first choice for any character/tag lookup, implying it should be used over siblings when a comprehensive profile is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the contrast with siblings provides clear context.

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

• danbooru_get_wiki_pageA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations, such as conversion of Danbooru DText markup to plain text in markdown mode, truncation via body_limit, and error handling (404 for missing wiki page). Annotations already cover idempotency and read-only nature, so the description complements them well.

  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 clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no superfluous information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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?

  The description covers the tool's purpose, usage, parameter details, return format (including a schema), error handling, and examples. With the output schema provided in the description and complete annotations, the description is fully adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

  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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some contextual examples and explains the purpose of title (e.g., 'like a Danbooru tag'), but does not significantly 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 it retrieves the wiki description for a tag and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'danbooru_get_character_profile' by noting that the sibling should be used for complete character info. It specifies the resource (wiki page) and the action (get), making the purpose very specific.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly provides usage guidance by stating when to use an alternative ('For complete character info, use danbooru_get_character_profile instead'). It also includes examples that illustrate typical use cases, helping the agent understand appropriate contexts.

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

• danbooru_search_characterA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds rich behavioral context: results ordered by co-occurrence frequency, default exclusion of meta tags, auto_resolve behavior for misspelled tags, and what happens when a tag is not found. No contradictions with 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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage comparison, auto-resolve explanation, Args, Returns, and Examples. It is front-loaded with the key information and is not overly verbose for the tool's complexity.

  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?

  The description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, input parameters, return format (including JSON schema), error handling, examples, and differentiation from siblings. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly without external information.

  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 already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (high coverage). The description adds value by including examples (e.g., tag canonical form), clarifying the auto_resolve behavior, and explaining the meaning of frequency. This extra context justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

  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: 'Get visual trait frequencies for a character tag.' It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool 'danbooru_get_character_profile', saying to use that if wiki/implications are needed. The verb and resource are specific.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Best tool for character visual trait analysis') and when-not-to-use ('Use danbooru_get_character_profile if you also need wiki/implications'). It also gives concrete examples of queries, which helps an agent select the tool correctly.

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