Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_componentB
  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 behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'returns info' and does not disclose what happens for unknown names, the format of the returned info, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap.

  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 front-loads the core purpose. No wasted words or redundant 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 simple tool with one param and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not clarify what 'component info' includes or how exact matching works. Given no output schema, the description should provide more context about the return value.

  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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by exact name' adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, making baseline 3 appropriate.

  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 returns design system component info, with the qualifier 'by exact name' indicating an exact lookup. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_component_for_use_case and list_components_by_category, though it does not explicitly mention them.

  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 when the exact component name is known, but provides no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or what to use instead. Sibling names hint at alternatives, but the description itself doesn't state them.

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

• find_component_for_use_caseB
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the purpose without explaining how relevance is determined, what the result looks like, or what happens when no match is found. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs semantic matching.

  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, concise sentence that immediately states the verb ('finds') and resource ('component'), with no filler or redundant information. It is well-structured 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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent. It does not describe the shape of the returned component, how confidence or relevance is presented, or edge cases like no matches. This makes it inadequate for fully autonomous tool selection and invocation.

  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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including a clear description and example. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the structured schema already 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 tool's function: finding the most relevant design system component based on a use case description. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_component (which likely retrieves a specific component) and list_components_by_category (which lists by category).

  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 when you have a textual use case and need a component recommendation, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over get_component or list_components_by_category, so usage is only implicitly determined.

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

• list_components_by_categoryB
  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 states 'Lists all available components' which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, nor does it mention pagination, ordering, or return format. This is minimal behavioral 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns a high score for brevity.

  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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description plus schema is sufficient for basic selection and invocation. However, the lack of any behavioral details (pagination, return shape) keeps it from being excellent, so a 4 is appropriate.

  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 already documents the single optional 'category' parameter with 100% coverage. The description merely restates the filter concept without adding syntax, defaults, or format details, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 ('Lists') and resource ('all available components') with an optional filter by category. It distinguishes from sibling tools by covering the list-all scenario, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

  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 indicates the tool can be used to list all components or filter by category, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_component or find_component_for_use_case. The usage is implied rather than stated.

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