Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_a11y_contractA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the output contents (roles, interactions, etc.) but does not mention error behavior, authentication needs, or side effects. The claim of 'highest-signal payload' adds some context but not exhaustive transparency.

  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 lists the output contents, the second states the use-case. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

  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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states what the tool returns and why it is useful. Minor gap: no mention of error handling for invalid primitive names, but overall adequate given low complexity.

  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 single parameter 'name' is fully documented in the schema with description and example. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

  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 retrieves the accessibility contract for a primitive, listing specific elements like roles and keyboard interactions. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'get_primitive' (which likely returns full primitive details) and 'list_primitives' by emphasizing it provides 'just the accessibility contract' and is the 'highest-signal payload' for accessibility wiring.

  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 context ('when wiring a component accessibly') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. It lacks direct comparisons or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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

• get_primitiveA
  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 burden. It describes a read-only metadata retrieval and lists what is included, but does not disclose any side effects or safety traits beyond that. No contradictions with annotations since none 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 a single, compact sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage, with no extraneous information.

  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 complexity of the metadata (parts, props, accessibility, example), the description lists these components, providing a clear sense of what is returned. No output schema, but the listing suffices. It could be improved by hinting at output structure, but it is largely complete for a getter with one parameter.

  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% for the single parameter 'name', which includes examples and case-insensitivity. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so 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 it retrieves full metadata for a Radix primitive, listing specific components (composable parts, props, accessibility contract, minimal example). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being comprehensive, while get_a11y_contract focuses on accessibility and list_primitives lists all primitives.

  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?

  Explicitly instructs 'Use before writing or editing any Radix component,' providing clear context. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but sibling tool names (get_a11y_contract, list_primitives) help the agent infer when to use alternatives.

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

• list_primitivesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, performance implications, or read-only nature. For a listing tool, the behavior is straightforward, but minimal behavioral context is given 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the action and result. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fillers.

  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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the scope (Radix primitives) and the output format (one-line descriptions), and provides usage context. It could be enhanced by mentioning whether the list is ordered or filtered, but it is adequate for a simple listing tool.

  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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. With 0 parameters, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none.

  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 ('List every documented Radix primitive') and the result ('with a one-line description'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_primitive, which are for individual items, by indicating it lists all.

  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 says 'Call this first to discover what is available,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It implies that after listing, other tools like get_primitive can be used for details, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives.

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