Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• finishC
  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 tool 'completes' a game session, implying a mutation or finalization, but doesn't describe what 'complete' entails (e.g., saves results, ends gameplay, triggers scoring) or any side effects like permissions or rate limits. This leaves 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.

  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 is front-loaded and wastes no space, 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 a game completion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens upon completion (e.g., returns a score, saves state, or provides confirmation), leaving the agent uncertain about the outcome or how to handle the result.

  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 the single required parameter 'gameId' as 'The game session ID'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating 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 action ('Complete') and the resource ('Rubik's Cube game session'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'joinGame' or 'manipulateCube', which might involve similar game sessions but different operations.

  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 'startCube' or 'manipulateCube'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., must be an active session) or exclusions, leaving the agent to 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.

• joinGameC
  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 ('join') but doesn't explain what happens upon joining (e.g., does it return game state, require authentication, have rate limits, or affect other players?). For a tool that likely involves multi-user interaction with no annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is inadequate, though not contradictory.

  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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. There's zero waste, and every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly conveying the essential function.

  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 joining a game session (likely involving multi-user state changes), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to cover behavioral aspects like safety or side effects, and there's no output schema to explain return values (e.g., success confirmation or game details). The description alone doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand the full implications of using this tool, especially compared to siblings like 'manipulateCube' or 'finish'.

  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 the single parameter 'gameId' fully documented in the schema as 'The game session ID to join'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this (e.g., format examples, source of the ID, or validation rules). With high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

  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 ('join') and resource ('an existing Rubik's Cube game session'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'startCube' (which creates a new game) and 'manipulateCube' (which interacts with an ongoing game), though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation, which keeps it from 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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid game ID from 'startCube'), exclusions (e.g., cannot join a finished game), or contextual cues (e.g., use after starting a game). With sibling tools like 'finish' and 'manipulateCube' available, the absence of usage guidelines is a significant gap, leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts.

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

• manipulateCubeC
  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 tool 'execute[s] a move,' implying a mutation or action, but doesn't clarify if this changes the cube state permanently, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly, with every word earning 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 (a mutation operation with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, return values, error handling, and how it integrates with sibling tools, making it inadequate for an agent to use confidently without additional context.

  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 both parameters ('gameId' and 'move'), including an enum for valid moves. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining move notation or game session context, so it meets the baseline score of 3 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 action ('execute a move') and the target resource ('on the Rubik's Cube'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'startCube' or 'finish', which likely handle different aspects of cube manipulation, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an active game session from 'startCube' or 'joinGame'), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'finish' for ending a session, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

• startCubeC
  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 tool initializes a session but doesn't cover key aspects like whether this creates persistent state, requires authentication, has side effects, or returns session details, which are critical for a mutation tool.

  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 front-loaded and wastes no space, earning full marks for conciseness.

  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 game session tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., session ID, cube state) or behavioral traits like side effects, leaving significant gaps for an AI 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'scramble' and 'difficulty' interact or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 ('Initialize') and resource ('a new Rubik's Cube game session'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'joinGame' or 'manipulateCube', 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 'joinGame' or 'manipulateCube'. It lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios for starting a new session, leaving usage unclear.

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