Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ragchat_serveA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 discloses that the server runs on localhost and handles POST /chat, but does not mention key behaviors such as port occupation, domain validation, or how to stop the server. It adds some value but lacks depth.

  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: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second provides a sibling pointer. Every word earns its place.

  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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It specifies the HTTP endpoint and mentions a sibling tool, but omits important details such as whether the server runs synchronously, how to stop it, or what the return value is. For a 2-parameter tool, this is adequate but has gaps.

  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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal extra meaning by tying the domain parameter to 'domain to serve' and port with default 3456, but essentially repeats schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 explicitly states the tool starts a local HTTP chat server for a domain, specifies the endpoint (POST /chat) and host (localhost). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ragchat_widget, which provides the embed code.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage by describing what the tool does, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus other sibling tools (e.g., ragchat_setup, ragchat_status, ragchat_test). It only mentions ragchat_widget for obtaining the embed code, providing limited usage context.

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

• ragchat_setupA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions vector embedding creation but does not address side effects (e.g., whether re-running destroys previous data), authentication needs, or error scenarios. Significant gaps remain.

  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?

  Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The action verb is front-loaded, and the workflow hint is succinct.

  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?

  Parameters are fully covered, but there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation, embedding IDs) or error conditions. For a tool that creates vector embeddings, more details on return values or success indicators are 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the section-document relationship and mentions the 50-char minimum, which the schema already includes. It adds marginal contextual value beyond the schema.

  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 initializes a domain with a knowledge base from markdown content, turning ## sections into searchable documents. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (ragchat_serve, ragchat_test, etc.) by being the setup step.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly says 'run this before testing or serving', giving clear ordering context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sequential workflow is implied.

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

• ragchat_testA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  It discloses that the tool uses RAG search + LLM and mirrors production behavior, but omits potential side effects, authentication requirements, or error handling. With no annotations, this is a moderate disclosure.

  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?

  Two sentences, no unnecessary words. The information is front-loaded and efficient.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  For a simple test tool with no output schema, the description covers the core function and use case. It could mention the response format, but it's reasonably complete given the 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines 'domain' and 'message'. The description adds an example message but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema.

  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 explicitly states the tool sends a test message to a domain's chat using RAG search and LLM, identical to production. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like ragchat_serve or ragchat_setup by focusing on testing.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description says 'Good for verifying the knowledge base works,' implying a testing use case, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings.

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

• ragchat_widgetA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output type and server connection, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwriting existing widgets) or permissions.

  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?

  Two concise sentences with no wasted words; purpose, output, and context are efficiently communicated.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output for a simple widget generator, but could mention customization limitations or additional usage notes.

  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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema's 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 verb 'Generate' and resource 'embeddable chat widget', specifies the output as a '<script>' tag, and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning connection to 'ragchat_serve'.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies the prerequisite of starting 'ragchat_serve' first, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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

• ragchat_statusA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the read-only nature (listing counts and status) without hinting at destructive or side effects, which is appropriate for a simple list 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?

  Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and output, with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (no output schema, no parameters), the description fully explains what is returned: domains, document counts, and config status. No gaps remain.

  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 zero parameters and full schema coverage, so the description needs no parameter details. The baseline is 4, and no additional information is required.

  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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured domains') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'ragchat_serve' or 'ragchat_setup' by focusing on status and readiness.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies use when you want to see domain setup status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'ragchat_test' or provide any exclusions.

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