Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• download_paperC
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions downloading and creating a resource, implying a write operation, but doesn't specify what 'create a resource' entails (e.g., file format, storage location, or permissions required). It also omits details like rate limits, error handling, or whether the download is immediate or asynchronous, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('download a paper'), making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the download and resource creation aspects 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 the complexity of a download operation with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'create a resource' means, the expected output (e.g., a file path or data), error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that likely involves file I/O and resource management, 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('paper_id' and 'check_status') with their types and purposes. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining arXiv ID formats or the implications of 'check_status'. 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.

  Purpose3/5

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

  The description states the tool downloads a paper and creates a resource, which is a clear purpose with a specific verb ('download') and resource ('paper'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'read_paper' or 'list_papers', leaving ambiguity about when to use each. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

  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 'read_paper' or 'search_papers'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid arXiv ID, or exclusions, like whether it works for all paper types. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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

• read_paperB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool reads content in markdown format, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid paper_id), or whether it accesses local storage or a remote service. This leaves significant gaps for a read operation.

  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 ('Read the full content') and includes key details (resource, format). There is zero waste, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for its simplicity.

  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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and output format, but lacks completeness in behavioral context (e.g., error cases, data source) and usage guidelines, which are needed for full agent understanding.

  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 'paper_id' documented as 'The arXiv ID of the paper to read'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 action ('Read the full content') and resource ('a stored paper'), specifying the output format ('in markdown format'). It distinguishes from 'download_paper' (likely for file retrieval) and 'list_papers'/'search_papers' (for listing/searching), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings beyond format mention.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download_paper' (e.g., for content vs. file) or 'list_papers'/'search_papers' (e.g., after identifying a paper). The description implies usage for reading content, but lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• list_papersB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists papers but doesn't describe return format, pagination, rate limits, or error conditions. For a read operation, this is a significant gap as the agent lacks essential context for proper invocation.

  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 no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('List all existing papers') and adds clarifying context ('available as resources'), making it appropriately sized for its simplicity.

  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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior and output, which are crucial for an agent to use it effectively, especially without annotations to fill gaps.

  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 adds no parameter information, which is acceptable here since there are no parameters to explain, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.

  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 'list' and the resource 'papers', specifying 'all existing papers available as resources'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'download_paper' and 'read_paper' by focusing on enumeration rather than content access, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_papers' which might also list papers with filtering.

  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 like 'search_papers'. The description implies usage for listing all papers without filtering, but it doesn't explicitly state this as a distinction or mention prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names alone.

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

• search_papersA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and delivers comprehensive behavioral disclosure. It explains result sorting ('Results sorted by RELEVANCE'), provides tips for foundational research, describes query construction guidelines, and offers multiple examples of effective usage patterns beyond what the schema covers.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (QUERY CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES, ADVANCED SEARCH PATTERNS, etc.), but it's quite lengthy. While every section adds value, it could be more front-loaded with the most critical information rather than burying key insights in extensive examples and tips.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a complex search tool with 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness. It covers query construction, filtering strategies, category explanations, date usage, result sorting behavior, and practical examples - giving the agent everything needed to use the tool effectively despite the lack of structured metadata.

  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?

  While schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds significant value by explaining parameter semantics in practical context. It provides query construction guidelines, category explanations with specific use cases, date filtering examples with historical context, and result quality insights that go beyond the schema's technical descriptions.

  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 purpose: 'Search for papers on arXiv with advanced filtering and query optimization.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('papers on arXiv'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'list_papers' by emphasizing advanced filtering capabilities.

  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 versus alternatives through examples like 'Use QUOTED PHRASES for exact matches' and 'CATEGORY FILTERING (highly recommended for relevance).' It distinguishes from 'list_papers' by focusing on targeted searches rather than general listing.

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