Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• new_endpointD
  1.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral information. It documents response formats for success (200) and validation error (422) cases, which gives some insight into possible outcomes, but doesn't describe what the tool actually does, whether it's read-only or mutative, authentication requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral characteristics.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is poorly structured - it leads with a tautological title, then dives into response format details without first explaining the tool's purpose. While not excessively verbose, the content is misprioritized and doesn't efficiently communicate essential information. The response documentation could be useful but comes before establishing basic understanding.

  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?

  For a tool with 1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It documents response formats but fails to explain what the tool does, its purpose, or when to use it. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description should still provide context about the tool's function and behavior.

  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 'name' parameter. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how the name parameter affects the response or provide additional context about parameter usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose1/5

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

  The description is tautological - 'New Endpoint' restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It provides no verb or resource specification, no indication of functionality, and fails to distinguish from siblings (though none exist). The description focuses entirely on response formats rather than the tool's purpose.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines1/5

  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. The description contains only response documentation with no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool should be invoked versus other approaches.

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