Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_posthog_annotationB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Create' and lists parameters, omitting details like required permissions, side effects, or response characteristics.

  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 short and front-loaded with purpose. The Args format is concise but uses a technical docstring style; still every part adds value without fluff.

  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?

  With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers parameters but lacks behavioral context, output details, and any guidance on usage prerequisites.

  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 0%, but the description adds parameter meanings and examples (e.g., project_id as integer with example, date_marker format). However, restrictions (e.g., content limits) are missing.

  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 'Create a PostHog annotation', using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on insights and projects.

  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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, preconditions, or context. Sibling tools are different, but the description does not highlight usage scenarios.

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

• search_posthog_insightsB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations available, the description must fully cover behavioral traits. It only mentions searching by name but omits details like pagination, result limits, case sensitivity, or output format. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for reliable use.

  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 brief and to the point, consisting of a single-purpose sentence followed by parameter explanations. It avoids redundancy, though a structured list would improve readability slightly.

  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 search function with two parameters, the description provides the essential inputs and purpose. However, it lacks context on output structure, expected behavior when no results are found, and any constraints, leaving some gaps in completeness.

  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 description compensates for the schema's lack of property descriptions by explaining project_id as an integer with an example and search as a filter by name. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, though more specifics (e.g., supported wildcards) could enhance clarity.

  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 searches for PostHog insights by name. This is a specific action on a specific resource. While it is distinguishable from siblings like list_posthog_insights (which lists all) and get_posthog_insight_details (which gets details of one), it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

  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 search tool versus listing all insights or retrieving details. There is no indication of prerequisites or limitations, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

• list_posthog_insightsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It implies a read operation but does not disclose potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Bare minimum acceptable.

  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?

  Extremely concise: one-line purpose plus clear parameter listing. No redundant information.

  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?

  No output schema, but description does not mention what is returned (e.g., list of insight summaries or IDs). Also lacks any note on pagination or handling of large result sets.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds basic meaning to the two parameters (project_id with example, search as optional filter). However, it lacks details on search format or behavior of null default.

  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 it lists all available PostHog insights for a project. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling search_posthog_insights which likely provides similar functionality with more filters.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_posthog_insights or get_posthog_insight_details. The description lacks usage context.

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

• get_posthog_insight_detailsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'get details' but omits whether the operation is read-only, any authorization needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is insufficient for a tool with zero 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is very concise (two sentences plus arg list), front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds necessary information. No wasted words.

  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?

  The tool has two simple integer parameters and no output schema. The description covers the basics but lacks details on return values (what constitutes 'details'), possible errors, or pagination. It is minimally complete given the context.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining each parameter (project_id, insight_id) as integers with examples. However, it does not clarify their source or validation rules, just barely meeting the baseline.

  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 retrieves details for a specific PostHog insight, using the verb 'get' and specifying the resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_posthog_insights (list) and search_posthog_insights (search).

  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 for a single insight but does not explicitly clarify when to use this tool over alternatives like listing or searching. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

• list_posthog_projectsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. The word 'list' implies read-only, but no explicit mention of safety, rate limits, or other behaviors. Minimal but acceptable for a simple operation.

  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, no waste. Perfectly concise and front-loaded with the action and resource.

  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?

  The tool has no output schema, so description should clarify what is returned (e.g., names, IDs). It does not, leaving ambiguity. For a zero-parameter tool, it is incomplete.

  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?

  No parameters exist, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. It explains the scope ('all available') which adds meaning beyond the empty schema.

  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?

  Clearly states it lists all available PostHog projects with a specific verb and resource. No sibling tools have similar purpose, so differentiation is natural.

  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 usage (when you need to list projects). No explicit when-not or alternatives, but the context is clear and no exclusions are necessary given the tool's simplicity.

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