Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_book_best_reviewsC
  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 'popular reviews' but doesn't explain how popularity is determined (e.g., sorting criteria, algorithm). It also omits key behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like (since no output schema exists). The description adds minimal value beyond the basic purpose.

  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 ('Get popular reviews for a specific book'), and every word earns its place. There's no redundant or verbose language.

  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 (a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like how 'popular' is defined, pagination mechanics, or return format. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what's returned (e.g., list of reviews with ratings), but it doesn't. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use the 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (book_id, count, max_idx, synckey) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying 'book_id' is needed for a specific book. It doesn't clarify parameter interactions (e.g., how max_idx and synckey work together for pagination) or semantics of 'popular' in relation to parameters. 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('popular reviews for a specific book'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_book_notes_and_highlights' (which focuses on notes/highlights) and 'search_books' (which searches books rather than reviews). However, it doesn't specify what makes reviews 'popular' (e.g., by rating, helpfulness, recency), which prevents 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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get_book_notes_and_highlights' for review-related data, or whether it's preferable for popular reviews versus other review-fetching tools not listed. There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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

• get_book_notes_and_highlightsC
  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. It mentions organization by chapter, which adds some behavioral context, but fails to disclose critical traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the output format looks like (especially since there's no output schema). For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, 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 ('Get all highlights and notes for a specific book') and adds a useful qualifier ('organized by chapter'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place.

  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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It adequately states the purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral transparency (e.g., safety, output format), and doesn't compensate for the absence of an output schema. For a data retrieval tool with multiple parameters, more context is needed to guide 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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying organization by chapter (related to 'organize_by_chapter' parameter) but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or clarify interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'include_chapters' and 'organize_by_chapter' relate). 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'highlights and notes for a specific book', with additional context about organization 'by chapter'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_book_best_reviews' (reviews vs. notes/highlights) and 'search_books' (searching vs. retrieving specific content). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_bookshelf', which might also involve book-related data retrieval.

  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 'get_book_best_reviews' or 'get_bookshelf'. It implies usage for retrieving notes/highlights for a specific book but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with sibling tools.

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

• search_booksC
  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 returning 'details and reading progress,' which adds some behavioral context beyond basic search functionality. However, it lacks critical information such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or pagination behavior. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and directly states the action and outcome. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating search criteria from return values for clarity.

  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 return values in detail (e.g., what 'details' include, format of 'reading progress'), error handling, or operational constraints. For a search tool with 4 parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to guide 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 parameters (keyword, exact_match, include_details, max_results). The description adds marginal value by implying keyword matching across multiple fields (title, author, translator, category), but this is partially covered in the schema. No additional syntax or format details are provided beyond the schema, 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 tool's purpose: 'Search for books in the user's bookshelf by keywords and return matching books with details and reading progress.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (books in user's bookshelf), and scope (by keywords). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_bookshelf' (which might list all books without searching).

  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 like 'get_bookshelf' (for listing all books) or 'get_book_best_reviews' (for reviews), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., when keyword is optional or required). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

• get_bookshelfB
  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 hints at a read operation ('Get') and output details, but doesn't address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's safe for repeated use. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely accesses user data.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get all books') and adds valuable output details. There's no wasted wording, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from output characteristics.

  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 complexity (accessing user data with statistics/categorization), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, and error handling, which are important for an AI agent to use it correctly.

  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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.

  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 ('Get all books') and resource ('user's bookshelf'), with additional detail about the output including 'comprehensive statistics and categorization information'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_books' or 'get_book_best_reviews', which prevents 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 like 'search_books' or 'get_book_best_reviews'. It mentions the scope ('user's bookshelf') but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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