Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• summarize_newsC
  2.9/5.0
  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 uses AI for summarization and provides a concise summary, but lacks details on how the AI behaves (e.g., model type, accuracy, language support), any rate limits, error handling, or output format. This is a significant gap for an AI-based tool with no structured annotations.

  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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that directly state the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavior.

  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 complexity of an AI summarization tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the summary output looks like (e.g., format, key points), potential limitations, or how it interacts with sibling tools. This leaves gaps for effective agent use.

  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 both parameters ('text' and 'maxLength') with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on 'text' content. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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: 'Summarize a news article using AI' specifies the verb (summarize) and resource (news article), and 'Provides a concise summary of the content' reinforces this. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_news_details' or 'get_top_headlines', which might also involve news content processing, 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 when to choose summarization over getting details or headlines, or any prerequisites or exclusions for usage. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection among the siblings.

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

• translate_to_koreanC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'high quality translation' but lacks details on behavioral traits: no error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. For a translation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate disclosure.

  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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

  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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'high quality translation' entails, return values, or error cases. For a translation tool with behavioral unknowns, more context is needed.

  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 one parameter ('text') documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by specifying 'English news text' as the input type, but doesn't provide additional details like length limits or formatting. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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: 'Translate English news text to Korean with high quality translation.' It specifies the verb (translate), source language (English), target language (Korean), and domain (news text). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'summarize_news' beyond the translation 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 (e.g., 'summarize_news' for summarization instead of translation) or specify prerequisites like input format requirements. The domain hint ('news text') is minimal context.

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

• get_news_detailsB
  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 retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond basic functionality.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, providing all necessary information in a clear and concise manner, earning its place fully.

  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 nested objects) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, with no annotations and missing usage guidelines or behavioral details, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of structured data. It's minimal but viable for a simple lookup tool, aligning with a score of 3 as the baseline for adequacy with clear gaps.

  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 parameter 'title' clearly documented as 'The exact title of the news article'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description, which applies here.

  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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific news article'), specifying what information is retrieved ('full description and URL'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_top_headlines (list vs. details) and summarize_news (summarize vs. full details), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from translate_to_korean, which could also retrieve details before translation, keeping it from a perfect 5.

  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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific title), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like get_top_headlines for lists or summarize_news for summaries. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated, resulting in minimal guidance.

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

• get_top_headlinesA
  3.5/5.0
  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 only states what data is returned without mentioning behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness guarantees, or error handling. It's minimally adequate but lacks important operational context.

  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?

  Two sentences with zero waste - first states purpose and scope, second specifies return format. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for this simple tool.

  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?

  For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks behavioral context. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention more about the operation's characteristics beyond just the return data 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the optional category parameter with its enum values. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 specific action ('Fetch'), resource ('top 10 US news headlines from today'), and output format ('headline, source, and publication time'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on headlines rather than details, summaries, or translations.

  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 getting current US headlines, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_news_details or summarize_news. It doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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