Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• hello_aigent_unsubscribeA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses idempotency and safety of double invocation, which is useful behavioral context. However, without any annotations, the burden is higher; it lacks details on error handling (e.g., if subscription_id is invalid) or side effects beyond consent revocation.

  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, using two short sentences that immediately convey purpose and a key behavioral trait. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or fluff.

  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 a single parameter, the description covers the main purpose and a behavioral guarantee. However, it does not describe the return value or potential error conditions, leaving the agent to infer or handle unknowns.

  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% for the single parameter, and its description 'The subscription to revoke' is adequate. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb 'Unsubscribe (revoke consent)' and clearly identifies the resource as 'subscription'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'subscribe' by being the inverse operation, and the idempotency note adds clarity.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'hello_aigent_subscribe' or 'hello_aigent_fetch'). The agent receives no context about prerequisites or scenarios where this should or should not be used.

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

• hello_aigent_fetchA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses key behavioral traits: signature verification against feed's public key, separation of verified and unverified updates, and stripping actions from unverified ones. This goes beyond the absent annotations, though it could elaborate on cursor management.

  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 concise, two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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 the return format (two arrays: updates and unverified) and verification behavior. It is mostly complete, though lacks details on cursor updates or pagination.

  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?

  Input schema has 100% coverage, with both parameters described in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter meaning, so it meets baseline expectations but does not excel.

  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 fetches new updates for a subscription using a stored cursor, specifying the verb 'fetch' and resource 'new updates'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (list, subscribe, unsubscribe) by focusing on retrieving updates.

  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 after subscribing, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It could mention not to use for listing or modifying subscriptions.

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

• hello_aigent_subscribeA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that subscribing is a consent decision, fetches a file, and persists a token locally. Missing details on idempotency, error conditions, or side effects beyond subscription.

  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 plus a warning. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

  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?

  Despite no output schema, description mentions return value (stored subscription, token not shown). Explains process and consent requirement. Could mention possibility of updating an existing subscription, but otherwise comprehensive.

  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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by clarifying defaults (feed_id defaults to first/only feed), explaining principal as account/user, and describing consent_scope as what principal consents to receive.

  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 subscribes to a Hello Aigent feed and explains the process (fetches discovery file, picks feed, subscribes). It distinguishes from siblings like fetch, list_subscriptions, and unsubscribe.

  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?

  Explicitly warns about consent decision ('confirm with your principal'). Provides context on how the tool works and mentions the discovery file URL. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but the consent note is strong guidance.

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

• hello_aigent_list_subscriptionsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states tokens are never returned, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention other aspects like authorization needs or rate limits, but for a simple list operation, it is fairly transparent.

  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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource, no wasted words.

  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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: what is listed and what is never returned. It is complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

  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?

  There are zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying what the results contain (feed, principal, consent scope, cursor) and what they don't (tokens).

  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 lists locally stored Hello Aigent subscriptions, both active and revoked. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fetch, subscribe, and unsubscribe by indicating it's a listing operation.

  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 when to use it (to list subscriptions) but does not explicitly compare with siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context of siblings (fetch, subscribe, unsubscribe) makes usage clear enough.

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