Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• api_deleteC
  2.9/5.0
  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 the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'DELETE' implies (e.g., resource removal). It's minimal and lacks critical operational 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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. It's appropriately sized for the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 tool that performs a potentially destructive HTTP DELETE operation, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like response format, error cases, or safety considerations, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

  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 the 'url' and 'headers' parameters fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high 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 ('Make an HTTP DELETE request') and target ('to the specified URL'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like api_get or api_post beyond the HTTP method, missing explicit sibling distinction.

  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 like api_post or api_put for similar operations, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks context for selection among HTTP method tools.

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

• api_getC
  2.9/5.0
  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 action but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, response formats, or idempotency. For a general-purpose HTTP tool, 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?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent 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?

  Given the complexity of an HTTP GET tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like expected response types, error scenarios, or integration with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable 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%, with the schema fully documenting both parameters (url and headers). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as example headers or URL constraints. This meets 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 ('Make an HTTP GET request') and the target ('to the specified URL'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools (api_delete, api_post, api_put) beyond the HTTP method, missing explicit distinction about when to use GET versus other methods.

  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 typical use cases for GET requests (e.g., retrieving data, idempotent operations) or contrast with siblings for different HTTP methods, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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

• api_postC
  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 mentions making a POST request but doesn't describe potential side effects (e.g., data modification, authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format). For a tool that performs HTTP operations with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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 function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

  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 HTTP operations (with potential for side effects, authentication, and varied responses), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and what to expect from the response, which are crucial for an AI agent to use this tool effectively.

  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%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (url, body, headers). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is 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 action ('Make an HTTP POST request') and target ('to the specified URL'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (api_delete, api_get, api_put) beyond the HTTP method, which is why it doesn't reach a score of 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 like api_put or api_get, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for when POST requests are appropriate (e.g., for creating resources). It simply states what the tool does without usage context.

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

• api_putC
  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 action but does not cover critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent (a key aspect of PUT). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use the tool safely and effectively.

  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, direct sentence with zero waste, clearly front-loading the purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's scope, making it 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 the tool's complexity (HTTP PUT with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like idempotency, error responses, or typical usage patterns, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (url, body, headers) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, but does not contradict it. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 action ('Make an HTTP PUT request') and the resource ('to the specified URL'), distinguishing it from siblings like api_get or api_post by specifying the HTTP method. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from api_delete, which also targets a URL, making it slightly less specific than a perfect 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 such as api_post or api_delete, nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication or typical use cases for PUT requests (e.g., updating resources). It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or context for selection among siblings.

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