Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• explain_matchA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (shows matches and reasons) and a key limitation (without returning a quote), which is useful. However, it does not state whether it is read-only, mentions no side effects, and leaves the return format implicit, so some transparency gaps remain.

  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 two sentences long, with the first sentence front-loading the primary purpose and the second adding a practical use case. There is no wasted text, 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.

  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 parameter and no output schema, the description explains the action, the subject, and a limitation, and it grounds the use case in 'keyword map' tuning. This is nearly complete, though the exact return structure (e.g., how topics and reasons are presented) is not specified, preventing a 5.

  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 100% coverage for the single parameter 'task' with a clear description. The tool description adds little beyond echoing 'task description' in the first sentence, so it does not significantly enhance the schema's meaning.

  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 what the tool does: it shows which topics a task description matches and why. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it does not return a quote, differentiating it from list_topics and motivate.

  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 provides a clear use case ('useful for tuning the keyword map'), giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools, so it doesn't fully meet the 'when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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

• list_topicsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The action 'List' implies a read-only operation, and it explicitly specifies the output includes topic counts, providing transparency about the return value. No hidden side effects are indicated.

  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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no redundant information.

  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?

  Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies the tool's behavior and return content. Additional details like auth or rate limits are not necessary for this simple read-only operation, so it is complete.

  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?

  The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic value by specifying 'every topic' indicating no filtering or optional parameters, reinforcing the schema.

  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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the exact resource ('every topic in the quote database'), plus adds the detail about quote counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like explain_match and motivate.

  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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, but the verb 'List' and scope 'every topic' imply its use for overview purposes. Sibling tool names are self-explanatory, making usage context clear.

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

• motivateA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the tool returns a motivational quote matched to the task and instructs the agent to include it in the response. This is transparent about the core behavior and usage pattern, though it does not discuss edge cases or side effects—acceptable for a benign, quote-returning tool.

  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 concise two-sentence structure. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides clear usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

  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 simple tool with no output schema and straightforward behavior, the description is complete. It not only explains what the tool does but also how and when to use it, making it fully actionable for an AI agent. No additional context is needed.

  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?

  The schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description reinforces the meaning of 'task' by saying 'passing a short description of what the user is doing,' which adds context beyond the schema's field description. It does not explicitly mention the 'avoid_repeats' parameter, but the schema already covers it, so the baseline is satisfied.

  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 tool's function: 'Return a motivational quote matched to the task currently being worked on.' It uses a specific verb ('Return') and a resource ('motivational quote'), and defines the scope ('matched to the task currently being worked on'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'explain_match' and 'list_topics', which serve different purposes.

  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 gives explicit when-to-use instructions: 'Call this at the start of a reply, passing a short description of what the user is doing, and include the returned line in your response.' This is clear contextual guidance. It doesn't mention when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, but the instruction is specific and actionable.

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