Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• download_musicA
  3.7/5.0
  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 of transparency. It only states the action and the return value ('Status message'), but does not disclose whether the download is asynchronous, what happens on failure, or any permission requirements. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

  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 concise: a single summary sentence, a parameter list, and a returns line. Every element is necessary, and there is no redundant or vague text.

  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 appears to be part of a larger workflow involving search and download_status, but the description does not explain how it fits into that workflow or what the 'Status message' means in practice. The return value is vague, though an output schema exists. It lacks context about asynchronous behavior or follow-up steps.

  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 description explains each parameter in plain language (e.g., 'Soulseek username who has the file' and 'Full filename path as returned by search'), adding meaning beyond the schema's basic types. It covers all three parameters, effectively compensating for the 0% schema description 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 clearly states a specific action ('Download') and a specific resource ('a file from a Soulseek user'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_music and browse_user. The purpose is unambiguous.

  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 noting 'filename as returned by search', hinting at a prerequisite workflow, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus download_status or other alternatives. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are provided.

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

• search_musicA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format ('List of search results with username, filename, size, etc.') but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention potential limitations, rate limits, or error behavior. The read-only nature is evident from the verb 'search', but not explicitly 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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by an Args section and Returns section. Every sentence provides necessary information with no redundancy or verbosity.

  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 search tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return format. It lacks some edge-case details (e.g., behavior when no results found, sorting order), but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining both parameters: 'query: Search text (artist, track, album)' and 'limit: Max results to return (default 20)'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare type definitions and default.

  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: 'Search for music files on Soulseek.' This is a specific verb ('search') and resource ('music files on Soulseek'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like download_music and browse_user.

  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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or relationships with sibling tools like search_last_results or download_music. The usage context is only implied by the purpose.

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

• browse_userA
  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 full burden. It discloses that the tool reads shared files and returns a list of directories/files, which is core behavior, but it omits any mention of error handling, user existence, or rate limits. This is minimal but not misleading.

  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 appropriately brief, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence is necessary, with no redundant details.

  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 1-parameter read-only tool with an output schema available, the description is nearly complete. It does not mention any prerequisites or when to use it relative to siblings, which slightly reduces completeness, but the core purpose and return value are clearly covered.

  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 provides only the parameter name 'username' with no description. The description adds meaning by specifying 'Soulseek username to browse', clarifying the exact purpose of the parameter. This compensates for the 0% schema 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 clearly identifies the action ('Browse a Soulseek user's shared files') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_music and download_music by focusing on browsing a specific user's 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?

  The usage context is implied: you use this to browse a user's shared files. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as whether to browse before downloading, or when a search would be more appropriate.

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

• search_last_resultsA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns cached results or an empty list if not found, which is useful. However, it does not explain what 'last search' refers to, whether results are scoped to a user, or if there are any limitations like cache expiration. Some behavioral context is given, but not rich.

  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 exceptionally concise and well-structured. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, then clearly separates Args and Returns. Every line is necessary and adds value, with no unnecessary repetition or filler.

  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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the input, output, and the 'not found' case. The main gap is the ambiguous meaning of 'last search' and how it relates to the search_music tool, but for a straightforward cache retrieval tool, it is sufficient.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The schema has no description for the query parameter (0% coverage), but the description explicitly explains: 'query: The search text used previously'. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema by indicating the query must have been used in a prior search, which is essential for correct usage.

  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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'cached results from the last search for a query', which precisely states what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_music, which likely performs a new search, whereas this tool retrieves previous results.

  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 implied usage is to fetch cached results instead of performing a new search, but there is no explicit 'when to use' guidance or mention of alternatives. The description does not state when this should be preferred over search_music or any other sibling, so usage is only implied.

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

• download_statusA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the return value (list of downloads with progress), but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or any side effects. The non-mutating nature is implied by 'check' but not stated.

  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 concise and efficiently structured: one sentence for the action and one for the return value. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted 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?

  Given the tool's simplicity—zero parameters, an output schema, and clear siblings—the description is complete. It states the purpose and return value, which is sufficient 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.

  Parameters4/5

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

  The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to add. The baseline score of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document, and the description appropriately omits parameter details.

  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, 'Check', with a clear resource, 'status of active downloads', which distinctly differentiates it from siblings like download_music and search_music. It immediately conveys the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

  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 clearly implies usage when an agent needs to monitor active or queued downloads. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for basic differentiation.

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