Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• compare_toolsC
  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 what the tool does but doesn't describe how it works—e.g., what metrics are compared (e.g., downloads, usage), whether it requires authentication, if there are rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand 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 front-loads the core purpose ('compare adoption metrics') and provides relevant examples. There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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 (comparing metrics across tools) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'adoption metrics' entail, how results are presented, or any behavioral traits like data sources or limitations. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's 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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema (tools array with enum and constraints, time_range with enum and default). The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying the tools parameter with examples but not explaining the time_range or any additional context. 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.

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the action ('compare adoption metrics') and the resource ('2-3 AI developer tools'), with specific examples provided. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (get_tool_history, get_trending_tools, search_tools), which likely serve different purposes like retrieving historical data, identifying trends, or searching tools respectively.

  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 its siblings or alternatives. It mentions comparing 2-3 tools but doesn't explain why this tool is preferred over, say, using get_tool_history multiple times or how it differs from search_tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

• search_toolsC
  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 full burden. It mentions search and filter functionality but lacks details on behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with no results. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

  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 ('search and filter AI developer tools') and lists key criteria without unnecessary words. 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.

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of tools with details), error conditions, or behavioral aspects like performance or limitations. For a search tool with 4 parameters, this leaves too many contextual 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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing filtering criteria (category, popularity, keyword), but doesn't provide additional context like examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

  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 'search and filter' and the resource 'AI developer tools', with specific filtering criteria (category, popularity, keyword). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'compare_tools' or 'get_trending_tools', 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?

  No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_tools' or 'get_trending_tools'. The description mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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

• get_tool_historyB
  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 mentions retrieving 'historical adoption data and growth trends,' which implies a read-only operation, but does not specify aspects like data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.

  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 with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes 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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or behavioral traits. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would be beneficial for full agent understanding, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

  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 clear documentation for both parameters (tool and months). The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the significance of the tool IDs or the time range implications. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance parameter understanding.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('historical adoption data and growth trends for a specific AI developer tool'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (compare_tools, get_trending_tools, search_tools), which focus on comparison, trending, or search rather than historical data retrieval for a single tool.

  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 its siblings. It lacks explicit instructions on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone without contextual differentiation.

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

• get_trending_toolsB
  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 full burden but only states the core function without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of tools with growth metrics). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

  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 without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, resource, time scope, and ranking criteria, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that returns ranked data. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., tool names, growth rates, categories) or how to interpret results, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior and output.

  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 all three parameters (time_range, limit, category) with enums and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'adoption growth rate' means or how categories are defined, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('fastest-growing AI developer tools'), with precise scope ('over a time period, ranked by adoption growth rate'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'compare_tools' or 'search_tools' by focusing on growth trends rather than comparison or general search.

  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 'get_tool_history' (which might show historical data) or 'search_tools' (which might filter by other criteria). It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied at best.

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