Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_libraryC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-like operation (search/filter) but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior when no matches are found. The description is too brief to be transparent about operational 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 a single, clear sentence that covers the tool's purpose and filter dimensions. It is appropriately concise with no wasted words. However, it lacks any structural elements (e.g., separate lines for behavior or examples) that could improve scannability.

  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 tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description only covers what the tool does, not what it returns or critical edge cases (e.g., conflicting filters, pagination default limit). While adequate for simple use, it leaves gaps that could confuse an agent, especially given the absence of annotations.

  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 100%, and each parameter has a description in the input schema. The description rephrases the filter criteria (name, playtime range, unplayed status) but adds no new semantic constraints or contextual guidance beyond the schema. It meets the baseline for a high-coverage 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 tool searches and filters the Steam library by name, playtime range, or unplayed status. It specifies the verb ('Search and filter') and resource ('your Steam library'), and the filter criteria distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_library' which likely returns all items. However, it could be more explicit about the action (e.g., 'returns a list of matching games') to avoid ambiguity.

  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 its siblings (get_game_details, get_library, get_recently_played, refresh_library). It does not explain when filtering is beneficial, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

• get_recently_playedB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, side effects, or confirm read-only nature. The description only states what is returned, not operational characteristics.

  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 extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys key information.

  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 adequate for a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema. It mentions returned fields (hours this period and total) but lacks full structure or format details. For a tool with no output schema, more completeness would help.

  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 100% for the single parameter 'count', which already has a description. The tool description adds no extra value beyond the schema; it mentions returned data but not how the parameter affects results. Baseline 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'games played in the last 2 weeks', specifying the time window and the data returned (hours this period and total). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_game_details or search_library.

  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. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or explicit comparisons to siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

• get_game_detailsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read operation ('Get store details') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the game is not found.

  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 that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and accepted parameters. 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?

  Without an output schema, the description lists the fields returned (description, genres, tags, release date, Metacritic score, price), providing completeness for a simple lookup tool. It does not mention error behavior or handling multiple matches, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds value for the 'name' parameter by specifying 'case-insensitive substring match against your library', which is not in the schema. For 'appid', no extra information is added beyond schema, but overall it augments parameter understanding.

  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?

  Description clearly states the tool gets store details for a game, listing specific fields (description, genres, tags, release date, Metacritic score, price) and notes it accepts game name or appid. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_library or search_library.

  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?

  Description implies usage for retrieving store details of a specific game but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs siblings or any exclusions. The sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself lacks guidance.

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

• get_libraryA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses that the tool returns playtime and last-played date for each game, which is helpful. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool requires user authorization. The behavior is partially 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 sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the main action and resource. Every word is informative with no redundancy or extraneous content.

  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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It could mention authentication needs, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the low complexity.

  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 schema already provides a description for the lone parameter (include_unplayed) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score 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 verb 'Get', the resource 'full Steam game library', and specifies the returned data (playtime and last-played date). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_game_details (specific game) and get_recently_played (subset).

  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 when the full library is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_recently_played for recently played games or search_library for filtered queries. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• refresh_libraryA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Description discloses that the tool clears a cache and affects subsequent queries, which is important behavioral info. However, with no annotations, it could further detail side effects (e.g., rate limits, auth requirements) or confirm idempotency.

  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 that front-load the purpose and usage. No unnecessary words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. No missing context.

  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 schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter information, but this is acceptable per the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

  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?

  Description clearly states the action (clear local cache) and the resource (cache for Steam queries). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_library and search_library by focusing on cache refresh rather than data retrieval.

  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 states when to use: 'Use after buying new games.' This provides clear context, though it does not mention when not to use or alternative tools.

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