Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• hello_wpC
  2.6/5.0
  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 'greeting' and 'testing', implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like response format, error handling, or any constraints. The description is too brief to provide meaningful 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose without unnecessary details. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with clearer action verbs.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., greeting message format), error conditions, or how it integrates with WordPress context beyond a vague mention. For a tool with no structured support, more detail is needed.

  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 parameter 'name' documented as 'Name to greet with WordPress context'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples or format details. With high schema coverage, 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.

  Purpose3/5

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

  The description states it's a 'WordPress-themed greeting tool for testing WordPress context', which provides a general purpose (greeting with WordPress context) but is vague about the specific action. It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like wp_function_lookup or wp_search_docs beyond the 'greeting' aspect.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'for testing WordPress context', but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to sibling tools like wp_function_lookup or wp_search_docs.

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

• wp_search_docsC
  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 but only states the basic action without details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. It doesn't add meaningful context beyond the minimal purpose, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

  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 purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., links, summaries, error cases) or behavioral aspects like pagination or limitations, leaving the agent with insufficient context 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (query and type with enum values). The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as search scope or result formatting, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra value.

  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 as searching WordPress.org developer documentation, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from sibling tools like wp_vip_search, which might also search WordPress content, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

  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 the sibling tools (hello_wp, wp_function_lookup, wp_vip_search). There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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

• wp_vip_searchC
  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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does at a high level without describing search behavior, result format, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a search 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is extremely concise at just 5 words with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses efficient language. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

  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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what kind of results to expect, how they're formatted, whether there are limitations, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. The minimal description leaves too many behavioral questions unanswered.

  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 meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain search syntax, result ranking, or how the section parameter affects results. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose as searching WordPress VIP platform documentation. It specifies the resource (WordPress VIP documentation) and verb (search), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'wp_search_docs' which appears to have similar functionality.

  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. With sibling tools like 'wp_search_docs' and 'wp_function_lookup' available, there's no indication of when this specific search tool is appropriate versus other search/documentation tools.

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

• wp_function_lookupB
  3.1/5.0
  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 tool looks up 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that entails—e.g., return format, data sources, error handling, or rate limits. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

  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 no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Look up detailed information') and efficiently specifies the scope ('about WordPress functions, hooks, or classes'). Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

  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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about what 'detailed information' includes, but it meets the bare minimum for a simple lookup tool.

  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 the parameter 'function_name' documented as 'Exact name of the WordPress function, hook, or class to look up.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as examples or format details. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as 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 tool's purpose: 'Look up detailed information about WordPress functions, hooks, or classes.' It specifies the verb ('look up') and resource ('WordPress functions, hooks, or classes'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wp_search_docs or wp_vip_search, which might have overlapping functionality.

  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 (e.g., wp_search_docs, wp_vip_search) or specify contexts where this tool is preferred, such as for exact name lookups versus broader searches. Without such guidance, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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