Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• integrate_designC
  2.9/5.0
  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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns an IntegratedDesign with specific elements (props summary, private components, composition recommendations), which adds some context. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or mutation operation, error handling, performance characteristics, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by separating usage notes). Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

  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?

  Given the complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It specifies the output structure (IntegratedDesign with props summary, private components, recommendations), which partially compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it doesn't fully address behavioral aspects or usage guidelines, leaving room for improvement in guiding an AI agent.

  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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (blockDesigns and strategy) well-documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies that blockDesigns should be 'completed' and strategy is 'overall', but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Combine the overall DesignStrategy with completed blockDesigns and return IntegratedDesign'. It specifies the verb ('combine'), resources (DesignStrategy and blockDesigns), and output (IntegratedDesign). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like design_block or design_component, which appear to be related design tools.

  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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that blockDesigns must be 'completed'), compare it to sibling tools like design_block, or specify scenarios where integration is needed versus creating individual designs. The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

• query_componentC
  2.9/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool queries information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides basic usage. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., structure of documentation, API details, or example code), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like permissions or errors. For a query tool with no structured support, this leaves the agent under-informed.

  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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'componentName' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reiterating that a component name should be provided. It doesn't explain nuances like naming conventions or examples beyond what's in 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.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Query detailed information of a component including documentation, API, and example code.' It specifies the verb ('query') and resource ('component') with details about what information is retrieved. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'design_component' or 'integrate_design', which might have overlapping functionality.

  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 minimal guidance: 'Provide the component name to get all related information.' It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'design_component' or 'integrate_design', nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts. This lack of comparative guidance leaves the agent uncertain about tool selection.

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

• design_blockB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions being part of a 'strategy' and 'detailed component design,' but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read or write operation, potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with complex parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

  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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value by specifying the tool's role in a strategy, though it could be slightly more structured to highlight key usage aspects.

  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 (4 parameters with nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and deeper context for usage, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke this tool effectively in a design workflow.

  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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying 'blockId' and 'prompt' are key (as required), but doesn't explain their roles or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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?

  The description clearly states the action ('Design') and resource ('a specific block'), and mentions it's part of a 'block-based design strategy for detailed component design.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's the 'second-stage tool' in a strategy, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'design_component' or 'integrate_design.'

  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 context by stating it's the 'second-stage tool in the block-based design strategy,' suggesting it should be used after some initial step. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'design_component'), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on the strategic mention.

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

• design_componentA
  3.6/5.0
  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 that the tool 'breaks down into multiple blocks with step-by-step guidance' for complex needs, which adds behavioral context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't cover aspects like permissions, rate limits, or what constitutes 'complex needs', leaving gaps for a mutation-like tool.

  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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core function, and the second provides usage triggers and behavioral nuance. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

  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?

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, output format) and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of structured data. Adequate for a tool with 2 parameters but with clear gaps.

  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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('prompt' and 'component') thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the 'block-based' strategy in relation to inputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze user requirements and develop a block-based design strategy.' This specifies the verb ('analyze' and 'develop') and resource ('design strategy'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'design_block' or 'integrate_design' beyond mentioning 'block-based' approach.

  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 clear usage context: 'Use this when users ask to 'design component', 'create component', or 'component design'.' It also mentions handling 'complex needs' with breakdowns, but doesn't specify when to use alternatives like 'design_block' or 'query_component', nor does it provide explicit exclusions.

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