Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate-framelayoutC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'generate code', which is non-destructive, but doesn't clarify idempotency, side effects, or whether it modifies anything.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  A single sentence is concise but too brief for a 3-parameter tool with nested objects. It lacks necessary detail without being wasteful.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  Given the complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain enum values, view structure, configuration options, or output format.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It does not mention layoutType, views, or configuration, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

  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?

  Description clearly states the tool generates FrameLayoutKit code for iOS layouts, distinguishing it from siblings like convert-autolayout or validate-framelayout. However, it lacks specificity about output format (e.g., Swift, XML).

  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 convert-autolayout or generate-viewcontroller. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• generate-viewcontrollerC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states generation of a view controller but omits details on side effects (e.g., file creation, overwriting), permissions, or output format. This is insufficient.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is extremely short and concise, but conciseness comes at the cost of missing critical information. A slightly longer description with more structure would be preferable.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  Given the complexity of the input schema and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not describe the generated output, integration with other tools, or any constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no semantic information about the parameters. The complex nested layoutStructure object is not explained, making it difficult for an agent to construct valid inputs.

  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 generates a complete view controller with FrameLayoutKit layouts, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like generate-framelayout, which might generate only layouts.

  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 tool versus alternatives such as convert-autolayout or generate-framelayout. Prerequisites or preferred usage contexts are absent.

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

• generate-migration-guideC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Generate a guide', implying a non-destructive operation, but does not specify side effects, authorization needs, or whether it modifies any files. The behavioral traits are vague.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structured front-loading of key information. It could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.

  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?

  Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how to interpret the generated guide.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has zero description coverage (no descriptions for parameters). The tool description does not add any meaning to parameters like 'projectPath' (directory or file?), 'swiftFiles' (relative/absolute paths?), or 'outputFormat' (what each format produces?).

  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 'Generate' and the resource 'migration guide' with a specific purpose: converting projects to FrameLayoutKit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'convert-autolayout' which does the actual conversion, and 'generate-framelayout' which generates layouts.

  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 tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context for its usage. The description lacks any conditions or exclusions.

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

• convert-autolayoutB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'convert', which is a generic action. It does not disclose whether the conversion is a pure transformation, if it modifies code in place, or any performance or permission implications. Minimal behavioral context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is a single short sentence, which is highly concise. However, it may be too brief to convey all necessary context. Front-loading is not needed but structure is flat.

  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?

  Given the complexity (2 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain input constraints, output format, or edge cases. The agent would have limited understanding of how to use the tool effectively.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has two parameters (swiftCode and options) but no descriptions within the schema (0% coverage). The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer the purpose of parameters like 'options' and its subfields.

  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 'Convert Auto Layout code to FrameLayoutKit syntax', specifying the action, input, and output format. It distinguishes from siblings like generate-framelayout (generates new code) and validate-framelayout (validation).

  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?

  Usage is implied but not explicit. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate-framelayout or generate-migration-guide. No contextual guidance on prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.

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

• validate-framelayoutB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description lacks details on side effects, return values, or error handling. The agent is left unaware of what happens upon validation failure or whether the tool is read-only.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous content. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  Given the tool has two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of validation outcomes, the different check levels, and error behavior, leaving significant gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'swiftCode' or 'checkLevel' parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's names and enum, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

  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 explicitly states the tool validates FrameLayoutKit code for syntax and semantic correctness, providing a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'convert-autolayout' or 'generate-framelayout' which handle conversion/generation.

  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 validation but offers no explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives. However, sibling tools have distinct purposes, so an agent can infer context.

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