Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_knowledgeC
  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 states the tool searches and returns relevant chunks, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, how relevance is determined (e.g., semantic vs. keyword), whether results are paginated or limited, or any rate limits or authentication needs. The description is too vague for a tool with no annotation support.

  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 concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and output. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second sentence could be more specific (e.g., 'Returns the top-k most relevant text chunks'), and there's some redundancy with 'relevant' repeated.

  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 'chunks' are (e.g., text snippets, documents), how results are formatted, or any error conditions. For a search tool with behavioral complexity, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand proper usage and expectations.

  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 parameters 'query' and 'top_k.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what constitutes a 'chunk' or how 'top_k' affects relevance). Baseline score of 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 tool's purpose: 'Search the knowledge base for relevant information' (verb+resource). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_chunk' (which likely retrieves a specific chunk) and 'list_categories' (which likely lists categories). However, it doesn't specify what 'knowledge base' refers to or the nature of 'chunks,' leaving some ambiguity.

  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_chunk' or 'list_categories.' It mentions 'Returns the most relevant chunks' but doesn't clarify when searching is preferable over direct retrieval or listing. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for usage are provided.

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

• list_categoriesB
  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 states this is a list operation but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it returns a paginated response, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

  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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds a brief usage hint. It's front-loaded with the main action and efficiently structured without 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a list operation. It doesn't explain what the return values are (e.g., list format, fields included), behavioral traits like pagination or sorting, or error conditions. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to handle the tool's output.

  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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary detail.

  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 'List' and resource 'all available categories in the knowledge base', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (get_chunk, search_knowledge) in terms of scope or function, 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 includes 'Helpful for understanding what topics are covered', which implies usage for topic exploration, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_knowledge or get_chunk. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives mentioned.

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

• get_chunkA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 implies this is a read operation ('Retrieve'), but doesn't address potential error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the chunk ID doesn't exist. The description adds basic context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

  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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

  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?

  For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and usage context but lacks details about return format, error handling, or behavioral characteristics that would be helpful given the absence of annotations.

  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 the single parameter (chunk_id). The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides, only reinforcing that it retrieves by ID without adding format examples or constraints beyond the schema's description.

  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 ('Retrieve a specific chunk') and resource ('from the knowledge base'), with explicit differentiation from sibling tools (list_categories, search_knowledge) by focusing on retrieval by ID rather than listing or searching.

  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 context for when to use this tool ('when you need the full content of a previously found chunk'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (list_categories, search_knowledge).

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