Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_documentation_pagesB
  3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only states the action. It does not disclose behaviors like pagination, default limits, how the 'section' parameter affects results, or what 'discovered' means.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise but arguably too terse for a tool with optional parameters and sibling alternatives, missing opportunities to add essential context.

  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 presence of sibling tools and optional parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify when to use this tool instead of search_documentation or read_documentation, nor does it explain parameter semantics. The output schema may cover return values, but the overall context is lacking.

  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 offers no explanation of the 'limit' or 'section' parameters. The agent must rely solely on the schema defaults, which lack contextual 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 the tool lists documentation pages from the official chezmoi documentation site, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_documentation and read_documentation by focusing on listing all discovered pages.

  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 use case is implied through the verb 'list' and the resource, suggesting this is the tool for obtaining an overview of available pages. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use them, leaving some ambiguity.

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

• search_documentationB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description adds that results are 'ranked matches', which is useful behavioral context beyond the tool's name. However, without annotations, it does not disclose any limitations, whether the search covers full text, or any side effects. Still, the read-only nature is implied by 'search', and the output schema covers return details.

  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 states the action and resource directly. No waste, every word contributes to understanding the core function.

  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?

  Despite having an output schema, the description lacks usage guidelines and parameter semantics. Given the simplicity of the tool, a complete description should at least note that 'query' is required and 'limit' controls the number of results.

  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 does not mention the 'query' or 'limit' parameters. The agent gets no semantic guidance on how to construct values, especially the meaning of 'limit' and any constraints on 'query'.

  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 'search' with a clear resource 'official chezmoi documentation' and an outcome 'return ranked matches'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_documentation and list_documentation_pages, which imply different actions.

  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 the sibling tools. It does not mention scenarios or alternatives, leaving the agent without contextual selection criteria.

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

• read_sectionsB
  3.3/5.0
  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. It only states 'Read selected sections' without disclosing what happens if a section is missing, how sections are matched, or any other behavioral details. The description adds little beyond the tool name.

  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, front-loaded with the key verb and resource. Every word earns its place with no wasted or redundant content.

  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?

  Although an output schema exists, the description is too sparse to fully guide usage. It does not clarify the expected format of sections, the relationship between url and page content, or any prerequisites. The low parameter semantics and lack of behavioral guidance make this incomplete for a new user.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'selected sections' but does not explain what the `url` parameter is for beyond implying it points to a page, nor what the `sections` array should contain (e.g., heading names, slugs). The description adds minimal semantic 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 clearly states a specific action ('Read selected sections') on a resource ('chezmoi documentation page'), distinguishing it from siblings like read_documentation (which likely reads a whole page) and search_documentation.

  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: the description and sibling names suggest this tool is for reading specific sections rather than entire pages. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this vs read_documentation, or how sections should be identified.

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

• read_documentationA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the main action (read and convert to Markdown) but does not mention any side effects, prerequisites, or edge cases (e.g., how 'main content' is determined, whether it is a network call, or error behavior). This provides some transparency but lacks depth.

  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 core action ('Read a chezmoi documentation page') and adds the key detail of Markdown conversion. No unnecessary words 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's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present, no nested objects), the description covers the essential behavior. However, it does not mention the existence of siblings or when to choose this over them, but for a straightforward read operation the description is reasonably 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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The single parameter 'url' is given meaning by the description's reference to 'a chezmoi documentation page', indicating the URL points to that page. This adds enough context beyond the bare parameter name, though it could be more explicit about URL formats.

  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 verb 'read' and resource 'chezmoi documentation page', and adds the conversion detail 'convert its main content to Markdown'. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_documentation (search) and list_documentation_pages (list) by focusing on retrieving a specific page's content.

  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 you need a specific documentation page's content as Markdown, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings or provide any exclusions. There is clear context but no explicit comparison or conditions, so it stops short of strong guidance.

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