Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• skillC
  2.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions loading a skill to get instructions, implying a read operation, but doesn't specify if this requires authentication, has side effects, or how it handles errors (e.g., if the skill doesn't exist). The note about no skills being available hints at potential limitations but lacks detail on behavior like return formats or failure modes.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is brief with two sentences, but the second sentence ('No skills are currently available') is extraneous and doesn't earn its place by adding value to tool understanding—it's more of a runtime note. This reduces efficiency, though the overall structure is simple and not overly verbose.

  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's complexity (a single parameter with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'detailed instructions' entail, how results are returned, or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, more context is needed for effective use, making this inadequate for a tool that interacts with skills.

  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 a single required parameter 'name' described as 'The name of the skill to load'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples of skill names or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool 'loads a skill to get detailed instructions for a specific task', which provides a verb ('load') and resource ('skill') with a purpose ('get detailed instructions'). However, it doesn't clearly differentiate from siblings like 'list_skills', 'skill_resource', or 'skill_script', making the scope somewhat vague. The phrase 'No skills are currently available' adds confusion about current functionality rather than clarifying purpose.

  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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'list_skills' (which might list available skills) or 'skill_resource' (which might handle skill resources), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The statement about no skills being available is informational but doesn't serve as usage guidance.

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

• skill_scriptB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions execution context ('workspace directory') but lacks critical details: required permissions, security implications, error handling, output format, or execution environment constraints. For a script execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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 efficiently convey the core purpose, supported script types, and execution context with zero wasted words. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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?

  For a script execution tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address security implications, permission requirements, error behavior, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity and lack of structured coverage, more contextual information is needed for safe and effective 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone, with no value added by the description.

  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 action ('Execute a script') and resource ('from a skill's scripts/ directory'), specifying supported file types (Python, Shell, JavaScript, TypeScript). It distinguishes from file_edit/read/write by focusing on script execution rather than file manipulation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'skill' or 'skill_resource' tools.

  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 provides context ('bundled with a skill', 'executed in the workspace directory') that implies when to use this tool, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like 'skill' or 'skill_resource'. It mentions script types but offers no guidance on prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

• file_readB
  3.3/5.0
  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. While it states this is a read operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like what happens if the file doesn't exist, whether there are size limitations, what format the content is returned in, or any permission requirements. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

  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 clear sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage context. There's no wasted language, though it could potentially be more front-loaded with the most critical 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?

  For a file reading tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the file content is returned in, how errors are handled, or any limitations. Given the complexity of file operations and the lack of structured data coverage, the description should provide more complete context.

  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 schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about the file_path parameter beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

  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 with specific verb ('Read') and resource ('file from the workspace directory'). It distinguishes from some siblings like file_edit and file_write by focusing on reading rather than modifying files. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_skills or skill-related tools, which is why it's not 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 Guidelines4/5

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

  The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to read files generated by skills or modified by the user'), which helps distinguish it from file_edit and file_write. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives for different scenarios, 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.

• file_editB
  3.4/5.0
  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 mentions that 'old_string must exist in the file and should be unique,' which adds some behavioral context (constraints on input), but fails to disclose critical traits like whether the edit is destructive (likely yes, but not stated), error handling for missing files or non-unique strings, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and leaves key behavioral aspects unspecified.

  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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value (the second clarifies constraints). There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

  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 a mutation tool (file editing), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, modified content), error conditions, or broader behavioral context. For a tool that modifies files, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its full operation.

  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 fully documents all parameters (file_path, old_string, new_string, replace_all). The description adds minimal value by reinforcing that old_string 'must exist and should be unique,' which slightly elaborates beyond the schema's 'must exist and be unique in the file.' This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 ('Edit an existing file'), the method ('using search and replace'), and distinguishes it from siblings like file_read (read-only) and file_write (general write). It goes beyond the tool name by specifying the search-and-replace mechanism.

  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 by stating 'old_string must exist in the file and should be unique,' which suggests when to use this tool (for targeted text replacement) but doesn't explicitly compare it to alternatives like file_write for general file modifications or when not to use it. No explicit guidance on prerequisites or sibling tool selection is provided.

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

• file_writeA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'overwrite' which implies destructive behavior, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether overwriting is irreversible, file size limits, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient 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?

  Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

  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 file write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has significant gaps. It explains the basic purpose and usage context but lacks details about behavioral implications (destructiveness, permissions), error cases, or return values. The 100% schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context.

  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 both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., file path conventions, content formatting). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

  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 ('Create or overwrite') and resource ('a file in the workspace'), distinguishing it from siblings like file_read (read-only) and file_edit (modify existing). It specifies both creation and overwriting behaviors, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

  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 context for when to use it ('when a skill needs to generate output files'), which helps differentiate from file_edit for modifications. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like file_edit for partial updates, leaving some guidance gaps.

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

• skill_resourceA
  4.2/5.0
  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 behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read operation and specifies the path format, but doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., if skill isn't loaded, file doesn't exist), permissions needed, or what happens with binary files. It provides basic context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

  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 perfectly structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance and parameter context. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy, and key information is front-loaded appropriately.

  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 read-only tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides good context about when to use it and what types of files it handles. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from mentioning what the return value looks like (e.g., file content as string) or common error scenarios.

  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 documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing example paths ('assets/template.md', 'references/api_reference.md') and clarifying that paths are relative to the skill's base directory, but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

  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 ('Read a resource file') and resource ('from a skill's directory'), distinguishing it from generic file tools like file_read by specifying the skill context. It explicitly mentions the types of files that can be read (templates, examples, reference documentation), making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool ('after loading a skill to read referenced files') and distinguishes it from alternatives by specifying the skill-specific context. It also clarifies the relationship with sibling tools by implying this is for skill resources rather than general file operations.

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

• list_skillsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's behavior (listing skills with names/descriptions) but lacks details like whether it returns all skills at once, if there's pagination, or any rate limits. It's adequate but has gaps in behavioral 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 that are front-loaded with the purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste, making it efficient and well-structured.

  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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for a list operation. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like output format or limitations.

  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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it doesn't add unnecessary information.

  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 ('List all available skills') and the resource ('skills'), including what information is returned ('with their names and descriptions'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'skill' (which likely loads/executes a skill) by focusing on discovery rather than usage.

  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?

  Explicitly states when to use this tool ('to discover what skills are available before loading one'), providing clear context and distinguishing it from alternatives like 'skill' (which presumably loads/executes a skill). It gives a specific scenario for usage.

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