Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ask-coding-advisorsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 adds useful context: it queries three specialists (implying multiple responses or aggregation), uses free tier models, and has a fallback mechanism for rate limits. However, it doesn't cover other key behaviors like response format, error handling beyond rate limits, or whether it's read-only or mutative, leaving gaps 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Queries three OpenRouter coding specialists') and adds necessary details (free tier, fallback) without waste. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 (querying multiple models with fallback), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, response format, error handling beyond rate limits, and other operational aspects, making it inadequate for full contextual understanding despite its conciseness.

  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 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides no information about the parameters (e.g., what 'question' and 'context' represent, their expected content, or how they're used in the query). This fails to add meaning beyond the bare schema, resulting in a low score due to the high burden from lack of schema documentation.

  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: it queries three OpenRouter coding specialists. It specifies the service (OpenRouter), the type of specialists (coding), and the quantity (three). However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings since there are none, so it can't achieve a perfect score for sibling differentiation.

  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 mentioning 'free tier' and 'falls back to premium models when rate limited,' suggesting it's suitable for general coding queries with fallback handling. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other query tools or direct model calls), and there are no siblings to compare against, so the guidance is limited to implied context.

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