Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_papersC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'advanced filtering' but fails to detail key traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or what 'advanced' entails. This is inadequate for a search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be more structured by briefly outlining filter types. Overall, it earns its place without verbosity.

  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 complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or practical usage examples, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively in a context with sibling tools.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only vaguely references 'advanced filtering' without explaining what parameters like 'categories' or date ranges entail, how 'query' is interpreted, or default behaviors for 'max_results'. This adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.

  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 ('Search for papers') and resource ('on arXiv'), specifying 'with advanced filtering' to indicate capability beyond basic search. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_papers' by emphasizing search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'download_paper' or 'read_paper'.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_papers' or 'download_paper'. The description implies usage for filtered searches but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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

• download_paperC
  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 mentions 'download a paper and create a resource', implying a write operation, but doesn't specify details like file format, storage location, permissions required, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent adequately.

  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 with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action ('download a paper') and avoids unnecessary details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 (involving download and resource creation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what 'create a resource' entails, potential side effects, or return values. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool fully.

  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, clearly documenting both parameters ('paper_id' and 'check_status'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the resource creation process or default behaviors. With high schema coverage, the 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 action ('download a paper') and resource ('create a resource for it'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_paper' or 'list_papers', which might involve similar paper-related operations without the download aspect.

  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 'read_paper' or 'search_papers'. It lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid arXiv ID) or exclusions (e.g., not for checking status only). This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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

• read_paperC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, error handling (e.g., for invalid paper_id), rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not confirmed). More context is needed for a mutation-sensitive agent.

  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 with zero waste—front-loaded with the core action and resource, and includes the output format. Every word earns its place 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves content. It lacks details on return values (e.g., markdown structure, error responses), behavioral context, or usage relative to siblings, leaving gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

  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 the parameter 'paper_id' fully documented as 'The arXiv ID of the paper to read'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, 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.

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the action ('read the full content') and resource ('stored paper'), specifying the output format ('in markdown format'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'download_paper' (which might retrieve files) and 'list_papers'/'search_papers' (which list or search metadata), but does not explicitly contrast them.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download_paper' (e.g., for raw files vs. markdown content) or 'list_papers'/'search_papers' (e.g., for browsing vs. reading). The description implies usage for accessing content but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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

• list_papersB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states the tool lists papers but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, permissions required, or what 'available as resources' entails. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

  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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

  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. It doesn't explain what 'available as resources' means, the format of the returned list, or any constraints like ordering or limits. For a tool with no structured data support, more context is needed.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and since there are none, it meets the baseline of 4 for not adding unnecessary details.

  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 ('List') and resource ('all existing papers available as resources'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_papers', which might offer filtering capabilities, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_papers'. It lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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