Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• led_controlD
  1.3/5.0
  Behavior1/5

  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. However, it only states 'Execute led_control command', which reveals nothing about behavioral traits such as whether this is a read/write operation, permission requirements, side effects, or error handling. This lack of information is inadequate for a tool that likely performs a mutation (based on the name).

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  While concise with only three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded critical details and wastes its minimal length on a tautological statement that adds no value. True conciseness balances brevity with clarity, which is not achieved here.

  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?

  Given the tool's likely complexity (controlling an LED, implying a mutation), the absence of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address what the tool does, how to use it, what parameters mean, or what to expect in return, failing to provide necessary context for an AI agent.

  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?

  The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter 'state' is undocumented. The description adds no semantic information about this parameter—it does not explain what 'state' represents (e.g., on/off values, brightness levels) or provide any context beyond the schema. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

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

  The description 'Execute led_control command' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what the tool actually does. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination (e.g., 'control LED state' or 'turn LED on/off') and provides no distinction from sibling tools like 'get_pico_info' or 'set_pwm'. This leaves the purpose vague and unhelpful for an AI agent.

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

  Usage Guidelines1/5

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

  The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools. Without such information, an AI agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios, making this score minimal.

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

• set_pwmD
  1.3/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Execute set_pwm command' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what side effects it has, what permissions are needed, or how it behaves. It provides zero behavioral context beyond the vague implication of execution.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  While technically concise with only three words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide necessary information and wastes the opportunity to explain the tool's purpose. It's too brief to be helpful.

  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?

  For a tool with 1 parameter, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no meaningful context about what PWM is, what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

  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%, meaning the single parameter 'frequency' is completely undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about what this parameter means, what format it expects, what units it uses, or valid values. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

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

  The description 'Execute set_pwm command' is a tautology that restates the tool name without explaining what PWM is, what resource it affects, or what the command actually does. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (get_pico_info, led_control) or provide meaningful context about the operation.

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

  Usage Guidelines1/5

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

  There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, what context it operates in, or any prerequisites. The description provides zero usage context, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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

• get_pico_infoC
  2.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Execute get_pico_info command' implies a read operation but doesn't specify what information is returned, whether it has side effects, what permissions are required, or any rate limits. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the implied read nature.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely concise (three words) but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it wastes no words, it fails to provide essential context that would help an agent understand and use the tool effectively. The brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

  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?

  For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and siblings with different purposes, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'pico_info' refers to, what format the information returns in, or how this tool fits within the broader system. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively alongside led_control and set_pwm.

  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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter requirements. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. While the description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, this is acceptable for a zero-parameter tool.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

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

  The description 'Execute get_pico_info command' is a tautology that restates the tool name without explaining what it actually does. It doesn't specify what resource or information is retrieved, nor does it distinguish this tool from its siblings (led_control, set_pwm). The description fails to provide meaningful purpose beyond the name itself.

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

  Usage Guidelines1/5

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

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools. Users must guess when this tool is applicable versus led_control or set_pwm.

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