Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_shortcutsB
  3.2/5.0
  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 using 'Claude Opus to intelligently search,' which adds some context about the AI-driven behavior, but it fails to disclose critical traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or potential errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

  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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and method. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating functional and behavioral aspects).

  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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the core functionality and method but lacks details on output format, error handling, or operational constraints. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, which it doesn't, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

  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%, meaning the input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'natural language queries' and 'intelligently search,' which aligns with the 'query' parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the 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 tool's purpose: 'Query keyboard shortcuts for a specific OS, desktop environment, and/or application.' It specifies the verb 'query' and the resource 'keyboard shortcuts,' and mentions the intelligent search capability using Claude Opus. However, with no sibling tools, the differentiation aspect is not applicable, preventing a perfect score.

  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 by stating it handles 'natural language queries' and targets specific OS/application contexts, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other search methods). With no sibling tools, there's no comparison, but it doesn't provide exclusions or prerequisites, leaving room for improvement.

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