Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fetch_repo_infoA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds behavioral details beyond these: returns structured JSON, error handling for 404 and rate limits, and README truncation at 12000 chars. No contradiction with annotations.

  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 well-structured with sections: what it fetches, when to use, Args, Returns, Errors. It is front-loaded with key information. Slightly verbose but every part adds value; could be more concise but still effective.

  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?

  Given no output schema, the description explains return structure and error messages. Annotations cover safety, so the description completes the picture for a tool of moderate complexity. It lacks explicit details on exact fields of repo metadata, but overall is sufficient.

  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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description repeats parameter names and types but adds little beyond what the schema provides. It does not add nuances like format or validation rules. Baseline of 3 for high coverage 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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the specific resource 'public information about a GitHub repository'. It enumerates the fetched data (description, topics, license, stars, latest release, README content, root file list), distinguishing it from siblings like check_publish_readiness and build_announcement_brief, which have different purposes.

  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 explicit usage context: 'Use this when you need raw facts about a repository before writing about it or checking it.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for the agent to decide.

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

• check_publish_readinessA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying the tool operates on a public repo, returns a structured checklist report with fix suggestions, and confirms no mutation. No contradictions.

  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 well-structured with bullet points for checks, clear argument listing, and explicit return format. Every sentence is informative and necessary, with no redundancy.

  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?

  Despite no output schema, the description fully details the return format (Markdown checklist plus structured JSON with item details). Combined with annotations and schema, the definition is complete for agent 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?

  Parameter descriptions in the input schema are already detailed (maxLength, minLength, and descriptions). The description's 'Args' section repeats this information without adding deeper semantics, so 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 clearly states it runs a pre-publication checklist against a public GitHub repository, listing specific checks. It distinctly separates from sibling tools like fetch_repo_info and build_announcement_brief.

  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 states the use case (pre-publication readiness check) and lists what checks are performed. However, it does not specify when to avoid using this tool or provide direct alternatives beyond sibling context.

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

• build_announcement_briefA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns a Markdown brief with source material and per-target instructions, emphasizes it never posts automatically, and describes the gathering process (README, releases, metadata). No contradictions with annotations.

  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 well-structured: purpose paragraph, target list with descriptions, argument list, and return/usage note. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded. No repetition or verbosity.

  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 tool is complex with five targets and multiple data sources. The description provides a good overview and step-by-step instructions, but lacks details on the exact structure of the returned Markdown brief. However, given the annotations and schema richness, it is mostly complete for an AI agent without an output schema.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for owner, repo, and targets. The description restates these briefly but adds useful context: targets can be a subset with a default of all five. It also gives the enum values inline. This adds slight value beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline 3.

  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 it gathers repository facts and returns a writing brief with per-target instructions. The verb 'build' and resource 'announcement_brief' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings fetch_repo_info (which just fetches info) and check_publish_readiness (which checks readiness), making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 explains the workflow: call this tool to get a brief, then write drafts following its instructions, and notes that output is draft-only for human review, never auto-posted. It lists available targets but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. However, the context is clear enough for the AI agent.

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