Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_failure_modesA
  3.5/5.0
  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 for behavioral traits. The description only states it searches and returns results, but it does not explicitly disclose that this is a read-only operation with no side effects. For a search tool, this is generally safe, but the lack of explicit safety guarantees (e.g., 'read-only') reduces transparency. There is no mention of authentication, rate limits, or potential impacts.

  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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states action and input, the second states output structure. It is front-loaded and efficient.

  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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and output. However, it omits details such as whether the search is case-insensitive, supports partial matches, or how ranking is determined. For a minimal viable description, it is adequate but not thorough.

  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%, and the parameter 'symptom' has a detailed enum-like example in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond paraphrasing the schema's parameter description. Baseline is 3 for high coverage, and there is no extra value added.

  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 verb ('Search'), the resource ('Fail Modes taxonomy'), the input ('by symptom text or keyword phrase'), and the output ('Returns ranked matches with id, name, category, and matched context'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'get_failure_mode' (which likely retrieves a single item by ID) and 'list_categories'/'list_modes' (which provide lists without search).

  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 searching by symptoms or keywords, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., when to use 'get_failure_mode' instead) or provide alternatives among siblings. The context is implied but could be more explicit to guide the AI agent away from inappropriate use cases.

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

• list_categoriesA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided; description does not disclose auth needs, performance, pagination, or side effects. Only states what it lists.

  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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no wasted words.

  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?

  No output schema; description covers return fields adequately. Lacks details on ordering or error cases but sufficient for a simple list-all 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?

  Zero parameters, schema coverage 100%; description adds value by specifying returned fields (IDs, names, descriptions, mode counts). Baseline 4 for 0 params.

  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?

  Description clearly states it lists all taxonomy categories with specific fields (IDs, names, descriptions, mode counts). Distinguishes from siblings like get_failure_mode and list_modes which deal with failure modes.

  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 on when to use this vs siblings. Could mention scenarios like getting an overview or before drilling into specific categories.

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

• list_modesA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses basic behavior (list and filter) but omits details like pagination, sorting, or read-only nature. For a simple list tool, this is minimally adequate but could be more explicit.

  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 with no unnecessary words. It conveys the essential information efficiently.

  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 simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic functionality. However, it does not hint at the return format or structure of the output, which could be helpful for an AI agent.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter. The description adds value by providing an example value ('factuality'), which helps the agent understand the expected format beyond the schema's generic description.

  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 verb 'list' and resource 'failure modes', and specifies optional filtering by category ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_failure_mode (single item) and search_failure_modes (search) by indicating a straightforward listing operation.

  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 (listing modes, optionally filtered) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_failure_modes or get_failure_mode. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites.

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

• get_failure_modeA
  4.1/5.0
  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 states it retrieves a 'full structured record' but does not disclose behavior for missing IDs, error handling, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

  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?

  Single sentence, no wasted words. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

  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 simple tool structure (1 required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It tells what it returns and how to invoke it. No additional information is necessary.

  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 100% coverage with a description for the single 'id' parameter. The description repeats the example but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. 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 action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('full structured record for a single failure mode'), and the identifier ('by its ID slug'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_categories or search_failure_modes, which operate on collections or use search.

  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 usage when you have a specific ID slug and want a single record. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for listing all modes), but the context from sibling tools and the wording 'by its ID slug' provides adequate guidance.

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