Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• answer_questionsC
  2.6/5.0
  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 mentions providing answers and continuing a process, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, response format, or session management. This is inadequate for a tool with two required parameters and no output schema, leaving key behavioral traits unspecified.

  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 function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from guidelines.

  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 with two required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its full context and usage.

  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 both parameters (sessionId and answers). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that answers are for clarifying questions in a prompt engineering context, which is minimal value. Baseline 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.

  Purpose3/5

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

  The description states the tool 'provide answers to clarifying questions and continue the prompt engineering process,' which gives a vague purpose but doesn't specify what resource or action it performs beyond general continuation. It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'ask_clarification' or 'engineer_prompt,' leaving ambiguity about its specific role in the workflow.

  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 is provided. The description implies usage in a prompt engineering session with clarifying questions, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or how it differs from siblings like 'ask_clarification' or 'auto_optimize,' offering minimal direction for selection.

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

• ask_clarificationC
  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 tool asks questions to understand requirements, but doesn't reveal key traits: e.g., whether this is an interactive process with the user, how responses are handled, if there are rate limits, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 states the purpose clearly without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, but could be slightly improved by front-loading more specific context or usage hints to enhance clarity immediately.

  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 (involving user interaction and prompt refinement), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for an AI agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret this 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 both parameters ('sessionId' and 'questions') with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the format of questions, how they relate to the session, or any constraints. 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 tool's purpose: 'Ask clarifying questions to better understand user requirements and refine the prompt engineering process.' It specifies the verb ('ask') and the resource ('clarifying questions'), and it connects to the broader context of prompt engineering. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'answer_questions' or 'engineer_prompt', which might also involve user interaction or prompt refinement, 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 mentions 'refine the prompt engineering process,' but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't indicate if this should be used before 'engineer_prompt' or as an alternative to 'auto_optimize,' leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.

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

• engineer_promptB
  3.2/5.0
  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 'interactive refinement' and 'automatic optimization,' which gives some behavioral context, but lacks details on how the optimization works, what 'maximum effectiveness' entails, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating key features for clarity.

  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 annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the tool's purpose and hints at behavior but lacks details on output, optimization specifics, and error handling. For a tool with interactive and optimization features, more context would be beneficial to ensure complete 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'interactive' refinement works in practice). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

  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: 'Intelligently engineers and optimizes prompts for Claude Code' with specific verbs ('engineers', 'optimizes') and resource ('prompts'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'answer_questions' and 'ask_clarification' by focusing on prompt engineering rather than direct Q&A. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'auto_optimize', 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 Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage through phrases like 'interactive refinement' and 'automatic optimization for maximum effectiveness,' suggesting when interactive mode might be beneficial. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'auto_optimize' or provide clear exclusions. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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

• auto_optimizeB
  3.4/5.0
  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. While it mentions the tool 'automatically detects and optimizes,' it doesn't describe what optimization entails, whether it modifies the input text, what the output format is, or any limitations like rate limits or authentication requirements. This leaves significant behavioral aspects unclear.

  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 and well-structured with just two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no wasted text or redundancy.

  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 an optimization tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'optimized for Claude Code' means, what the output looks like, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool that presumably transforms text, more context about the transformation process and results 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable but not exceptional given the high schema 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: 'Automatically detects and optimizes natural language text for Claude Code.' It specifies both the action (detects and optimizes) and the resource (natural language text), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'engineer_prompt' 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 Guidelines4/5

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

  The description provides clear usage context: 'Use this when the user is writing conversational text that should be translated into an optimized prompt.' This gives specific guidance on when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools.

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