Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ddb_get_characterB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  The description implies a safe read operation but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the returned character sheet is fully detailed. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but falls short.

  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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No extraneous information is included, and it is efficiently front-loaded.

  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?

  While the description sufficiently covers basic retrieval, it omits information about the expected output (e.g., what 'full character sheet' entails). Given the lack of an output schema, the description could be more descriptive about the complexity and scope of the returned data.

  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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (numeric ID, name with substring match). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond summarizing they can be used for lookup. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the full character sheet for a D&D Beyond character using either an ID or name. This verb-resource pairing is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ddb_list_characters (listing) and ddb_get_campaign (different resource).

  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, or when to use one parameter over the other. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a login) or when to prefer ddb_list_characters first.

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

• ddb_get_campaignA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The behavior is straightforward but lacks explicit safety 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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It directly states the tool's purpose without elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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 the low complexity (1 required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides minimal but adequate context. It identifies the core action and resource but omits return format or any critical constraints.

  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 single parameter 'campaignId' is described in the schema as 'Numeric campaign ID' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no further information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'campaign details and member roster' for a D&D Beyond campaign. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like ddb_get_character and ddb_list_characters by targeting a different entity.

  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 retrieving campaign info but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, relying on the tool name and sibling context.

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

• ddb_list_charactersA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('List') and the data returned, but lacks details on authentication requirements, scope (e.g., only owned characters), or pagination. The description adds some value but is not fully 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?

  The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes key return fields. No extraneous information.

  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?

  For a simple list tool with no parameters or output schema, the description adequately states its purpose and return fields. It could mention ordering or limits, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

  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 no parameters, and the input schema is fully covered (100%). The description does not need to add parameter meaning, so baseline 4 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 states 'List all characters in your D&D Beyond account' with specific fields returned (name, ID, level, race, class), clearly indicating the tool's purpose and distinguishing it from sibling tools like ddb_get_character (singular) and ddb_get_campaign.

  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 retrieving a full list of characters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ddb_get_character for a single character. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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

• ddb_statusA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description does not disclose the output format or type. It says 'reports not logged in' but does not specify whether it returns a boolean, string, or status object. With no annotations, this is a gap in transparency.

  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 (two sentences), front-loads the purpose, and every sentence is necessary. No waste.

  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 description is mostly complete for a simple status check, but it lacks specification of the return value. With no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns to fully inform the agent.

  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 no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since none exist.

  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's purpose: 'Check whether the D&D Beyond session is active.' The verb 'check' and resource 'session' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like ddb_login (which logs in) and data retrieval tools.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit usage guidance: run this tool to check session status, and if it reports not logged in, run ddb_login first. This tells the agent when to use it and what to do next.

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

• ddb_loginA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses key behaviors: opens browser (side effect), logs in via Wizards ID, and persists session to disk. With no annotations, these details are critical and well conveyed.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with action, no wasted words.

  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?

  Complete for a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool. Covers purpose, side effect, and usage pattern. Minor gap: could mention expected return (e.g., success indicator), but not essential.

  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, so high baseline. Description correctly adds no param info because none needed.

  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 it opens a browser to log into D&D Beyond via Wizards ID, a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on data retrieval or status, not authentication.

  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 says run once and session is saved for reuse, providing clear when-to-use guidance. No exclusion of alternatives, but context implies it's the initial setup step.

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