Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• submit_bugC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Discloses that it returns the created bug record or None on failure, but provides no info on side effects (creation), required permissions, rate limits, or additional behavioral traits. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

  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?

  Two concise sentences that state purpose and return value without redundancy. However, the extreme brevity omits critical parameter and usage details, which could be added without harming conciseness.

  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?

  With 10 parameters, 2 required, and zero parameter descriptions in either schema or description, the tool is severely underdocumented. The output schema exists but is not shown; the description does not fill the gap.

  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 explain any of the 10 parameters (e.g., title, provider_name, importance). The agent gets no help understanding what each parameter means or how to use them.

  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?

  Clearly states the verb 'Submit' and resource 'new bug', and the tool's action is distinct from siblings like get_bug or search_bugs. However, it does not specify what 'provider' means or how it relates to providers.

  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, no prerequisites (e.g., requires login via login_provider), and no conditions for success or failure beyond the return value.

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

• search_bugsB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It only mentions date arguments but does not disclose whether the search is read-only, pagination behavior, required authentication, or what happens with no results. This is insufficient for a search tool with many parameters.

  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 extremely concise with only two sentences, no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and a key usage note. Every sentence 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 complexity (11 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, output schema exists but not described), the description is incomplete. It misses critical details on criterion combination (AND/OR), sorting, pagination, and return structure. The agent may misinterpret 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 11 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only clarifies date format for date-related parameters, ignoring all other parameters like title, tags, status, etc. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names.

  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 'search' and the resource 'bugs on a provider'. It is distinct from sibling tools: get_bug (single), list_bug_providers (list providers), login_provider (authentication), submit_bug (create). No ambiguity.

  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 provides a date format guideline but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_bug (for a known bug) or submit_bug (to create). No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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

• get_bugA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the 'metadata_only' flag behavior (skipping comments/tasks), but lacks details on authentication, error handling, rate limits, or effects of missing IDs. Adequate but not comprehensive.

  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?

  Two short sentences, no redundant words. Purpose and a key parameter option are conveyed efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 presence of an output schema (declared via context signals), the description need not detail return values. Parameter semantics are mostly covered. Missing usage guidelines and some behavioral details, but adequate for a simple fetch tool.

  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?

  Input schema has 3 parameters with 0% coverage, so description must compensate. It explains 'metadata_only' clearly. 'bug_id' and 'provider_name' are implied in the action phrase, but format or valid values are not specified. Overall adds meaningful context beyond 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 clearly states the verb 'fetch', resource 'bug', and specifies retrieval by ID from a given provider. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_bugs' (which searches) and 'list_bug_providers' (which lists providers).

  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 have a bug ID and provider name, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_bugs' or 'submit_bug'. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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

• list_bug_providersA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided. The 'list' verb suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not elaborate on behavior like ordering, filtering, or side effects. Minimal disclosure beyond the obvious.

  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?

  Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Efficient and appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.

  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 no parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It names the output (provider names). Lacks mention of potential return format or ordering, but the output schema likely covers that.

  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?

  No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable as baseline for zero-parameter tools.

  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 all available bug data provider names, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with specific bugs or login.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the simplicity and unique function (listing providers) makes usage implicit. Could benefit from context like 'Use this before searching or submitting bugs to reference provider names.'

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

• login_providerA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions anonymous authentication but does not reveal potential side effects, session management, or error behaviors. Some behavioral context is provided, but additional details would be helpful for a mutation tool like login.

  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?

  Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the overall purpose, and the second provides specific usage details. Front-loaded and efficient.

  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?

  The tool has an output schema (not shown) that likely covers return values. The description covers the main authentication modes. It does not discuss prerequisites or integration with sibling tools, but overall it provides sufficient context for a login tool of moderate complexity.

  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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of 'token' and 'credential_file' parameters, adding meaning beyond type info. However, 'username' is left undocumented. The description partially bridges the gap, earning above baseline.

  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 purpose: 'Authenticate with a bug data provider'. It uses a specific verb ('Authenticate') and resource ('bug data provider') with examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_bug, list_bug_providers, which are about data 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 provides explicit guidance on authentication modes for Launchpad, including when to provide a token, credential file, or omit both for anonymous access. It implies usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives.

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