Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_word_cloud_jobA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only domain context ('ShapeWords render job') but no additional behavioral details such as rate limits, authorization requirements, or response format.

  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 that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. Every word earns its place.

  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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description adequately states the action. However, it does not explain what status information will be returned or how to interpret statuses, which could be important for selecting and using the tool correctly.

  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 the jobId parameter is already described as 'ShapeWords render job id.' The description's 'by ID' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 action ('Check') and the resource ('ShapeWords render job status') with a specific identifier ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like render_word_cloud and create_word_cloud_job, which are for creation/rendering.

  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?

  The description implies this is used to check the status of a previously created job, which is clear from the sibling context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or name alternatives.

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

• create_word_cloud_jobA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, so the description need not repeat that. The description adds valuable behavior: that it starts a job and returns status/artifact URLs immediately, implying asynchronous execution. This goes beyond annotation hints and clarifies the tool's execution model.

  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 containing exactly the essential information: starts a job and returns URLs without waiting. No fluff or repetition.

  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?

  Given the tool has 25 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level summary of the return (status/artifact URLs) and the async nature. It lacks details about job tracking or polling, but those are covered by sibling tools. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

  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 84%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the schema carries the burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description doesn't compensate beyond the schema, but the schema does a sufficient job.

  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 a specific verb 'Start' with resource 'ShapeWords render job', clearly indicating an asynchronous job creation. It distinguishes from siblings by noting 'without waiting for completion', which contrasts with render_word_cloud's likely synchronous behavior.

  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?

  The phrase 'without waiting for completion' clearly implies a background/async use case, distinguishing this from synchronous rendering. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like render_word_cloud or get_word_cloud_job, but the context is clear and no exclusions are needed.

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

• render_word_cloudA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it waits for completion and returns a URL plus optional image content. It does not detail potential side effects or time costs, but the wait behavior is clearly disclosed.

  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 main action ('Create a ShapeWords word cloud') and then states the completion behavior and return value. Every phrase is meaningful and there is no redundancy.

  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?

  There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return value (artifact URL and optional image content). It also conveys the synchronous wait behavior, which is essential for a 28-parameter tool. Some additional context about fallback engines or error cases would be nice, but the provided information is adequate given the rich parameter schema.

  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 79%, near the baseline threshold. The description itself does not explain any parameters; it only mentions returning an artifact URL and optional image content, which is partially tied to returnImage. The schema already documents the parameters well, so the description adds minimal parameter-specific value.

  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 a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('ShapeWords word cloud'), then explains the synchronous behavior ('wait for completion') and output ('return the artifact URL plus optional image content'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_word_cloud_job (async) and get_word_cloud_job (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?

  The description implies synchronous usage by saying 'wait for completion', which contrasts with the sibling job-based tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of create_word_cloud_job/get_word_cloud_job, nor does it name alternatives. Clear context but no exclusions.

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