Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• addB
  3.1/5.0
  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. 'Add two numbers' implies a simple computation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like error handling, performance, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant 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 and front-loaded with the core action ('Add two numbers'), using only three words with zero waste. Every sentence (though it's a single phrase) earns its place by directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 tool's low complexity (simple arithmetic), no annotations, and an output schema exists (which covers return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It states what the tool does but misses behavioral and usage context, making it adequate but with clear gaps for an agent to rely on.

  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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It implies that parameters 'a' and 'b' are numbers to be added, but doesn't specify details like integer types or constraints. With low schema coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate, but it provides basic context, aligning with the baseline for partial compensation.

  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 'Add two numbers' clearly states the verb ('Add') and resource ('two numbers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools (fetch_markdown, search_docs), which are unrelated to arithmetic operations, so it doesn't need sibling differentiation but could be more specific about what type of numbers or context.

  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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, limitations, or context for usage, such as when arithmetic operations are needed versus other tools. This leaves the agent without explicit usage instructions.

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

• fetch_markdownB
  3.1/5.0
  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. It mentions 'Return markdown content' and 'via Jina reader', but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external web pages.

  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 no wasted words, clearly front-loading the purpose. Every part ('Return markdown content', 'of a web page', 'via Jina reader') adds value, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

  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 tool's complexity (fetching web content), lack of annotations, and an output schema that likely covers return values, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but misses behavioral details and usage context. With an output schema, it doesn't need to explain returns, but other gaps keep it at an adequate level.

  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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'url' parameter is for a web page, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify URL format constraints, validation rules, or examples, providing only basic context. This meets the baseline for low coverage but doesn't fully address the gap.

  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 ('Return markdown content') and the resource ('of a web page'), specifying it uses 'Jina reader' as the mechanism. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add' and 'search_docs' by focusing on fetching content rather than adding or searching. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools not listed, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

  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_docs' for searching documents or other web-fetching tools. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., URL validity), exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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

• search_docsB
  3.1/5.0
  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 the action ('Search') and return type ('top filenames'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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 that front-loads the core action and result. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 tool's moderate complexity (search operation), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context and parameter details. The output schema likely handles return values, but the description doesn't provide enough guidance for effective use without additional 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?

  The description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It clarifies that the 'query' parameter is used for searching, but with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is 4. However, it doesn't explain query syntax, format, or examples, so it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation, resulting in a score of 3.

  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's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('documentation index'), and specifies what it returns ('top filenames for query'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add' and 'fetch_markdown' by focusing on search functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar search tools beyond the scope of this server.

  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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'add' or 'fetch_markdown'. The usage context is implied (searching documentation), but no explicit guidelines are given.

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