Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_chartA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It explains output formats and optional file saving, but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, safety, or side effects beyond creation. Lacks explicit statement that this is a read-only operation.

  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?

  Description is two sentences with a list of chart types. Front-loaded with main purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and structured well.

  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?

  With 11 parameters fully described in schema and no output schema, the description covers main purpose and usage context. Does not explain return values or error handling, but for a chart generation tool the output is self-evident from parameters. 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 covers all 11 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds value by explaining the 'auto' chart type behavior and the difference from chart_from_csv, but does not add meaning beyond schema for individual parameters. Baseline 3 + minor extra context.

  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 generates charts from structured data and lists 14 supported chart types plus 'auto'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool chart_from_csv by specifying when to use each.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicit guidance: 'Use this when you have data already in memory as a list or dict; for CSV input prefer chart_from_csv instead.' This clearly tells the agent when to use and when not to use this tool.

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

• chart_from_csvA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses that the tool auto-detects numeric columns for y-axis and first non-numeric column as x-axis labels, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not mention error handling, CSV size limits, or the fact that it requires a header row (though schema covers this). No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden.

  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, no fluff. First sentence states the core function and auto-detection; second provides usage guidelines and sibling tool reference. Every sentence serves a purpose.

  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 complexity (9 parameters, multiple output formats, themes), the description covers the essential use case and distinguishes from siblings. It does not mention output_format, theme, or save_path, but these are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description completes the agent's decision-making context.

  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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the auto-detection logic for x_column and y_columns, which is not present in the schema param descriptions. This helps the agent understand the default behavior without reading the schema in detail.

  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 parses raw CSV text and generates a chart, with automatic column detection. It distinguishes itself from create_chart by specifying the input format (CSV text vs. Python list/dict).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly tells when to use this tool ('when the user provides CSV content directly') and when to use create_chart instead ('for data already in a Python list or dict'). Provides clear context and alternative.

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

• list_chart_typesA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it returns a list of chart types with identifiers and descriptions. No side effects or additional behaviors are expected for this read-only operation.

  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 well-structured sentences: one for purpose and one for usage guidance. No redundant or irrelevant 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?

  For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, the format, and when to use it.

  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 input schema has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate. Baseline score of 3 applies per guidelines.

  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 returns the full list of chart types with identifiers and descriptions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_chart and chart_from_csv, which are about creating charts, and list_themes, which lists themes.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly recommends calling this tool before create_chart or chart_from_csv when unsure about chart_type, providing clear when-to-use guidance and alternatives.

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

• list_themesA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 indicates a read-only operation (returning presets) with no destructive hints. The extra mention of a usage hint adds behavioral context. A small gap: it doesn't state that it has no side effects, but that's obvious given the nature.

  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 states the primary function, the second adds a usage hint. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

  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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and how its output should be used. It is complete and sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

  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?

  There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the returned data and how to use it with sibling tools, going beyond 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 clearly states the tool returns 'all available theme presets and named color palettes' for use with specific sibling tools (create_chart, chart_from_csv), distinguishing it from list_chart_types which lists chart types.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly tells when to use this tool: to obtain theme presets and palettes for the theme parameter of create_chart or chart_from_csv. It implies not for other purposes and provides a specific usage hint.

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