Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_4d_command_docsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it fetches from a specific URL, extracts content from the main tag, and implements local caching. It doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, but covers the core operational behavior adequately.

  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 highly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by operational details and caching benefit. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 tool's moderate complexity (fetching web content with caching), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good context about the source URL, extraction method, and caching. It could improve by mentioning the return format (e.g., plain text, HTML) or error cases, but it's largely complete for the task.

  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 fully documents the single parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples of valid command names beyond the schema's examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate 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: 'Get documentation for a 4D command' with specific details about fetching from a URL and extracting content. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on retrieving and caching documentation rather than clearing cache or opening in browser. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'open_4d_command_in_browser' beyond the caching aspect.

  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 through the caching benefit ('faster subsequent access'), suggesting this tool is preferred for repeated access. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'open_4d_command_in_browser' (e.g., for programmatic use vs. human viewing) or provide any exclusion criteria.

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

• open_4d_command_in_browserA
  4/5.0
  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. It discloses the behavioral trait of opening a browser and the specific URL format, but doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., browser pop-ups, network requirements), error handling, or platform dependencies. It adequately describes the core behavior but lacks completeness for a tool with external effects.

  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 zero waste: the first states the purpose and resource, the second provides the exact URL pattern. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple 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?

  Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, the URL format, and the browser interaction. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention of potential errors or platform constraints, but for this simple tool, it's largely sufficient.

  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 fully documents the single parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (it mentions the URL structure but doesn't elaborate on command_name format or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

  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 specific action ('Open a 4D command documentation page in the default web browser'), identifies the resource ('4D command documentation page'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it opens a browser URL rather than retrieving or caching documentation like get_4d_command_docs or clear_4d_docs_cache.

  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 context for when to use this tool (to open documentation in a browser), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies but doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tools that retrieve or cache documentation instead of opening a browser.

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

• clear_4d_docs_cacheA
  4.2/5.0
  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. It discloses that the tool 'removes all cached documentation files,' indicating a destructive operation, and explains the effect ('forcing fresh fetches'). However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, or confirmation prompts, which are relevant for a cache-clearing tool.

  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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second explains the effect. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every sentence earning its place by adding value.

  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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers what the tool does and the outcome. However, for a destructive operation, it could benefit from mentioning potential side effects or confirmation steps, slightly reducing completeness.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description adds no unnecessary param info.

  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 specific action ('Clear') and target resource ('local cache of 4D documentation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_4d_command_docs (fetch) and open_4d_command_in_browser (open in browser). It precisely defines what the tool does without being tautological.

  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 context for when to use this tool ('forcing fresh fetches on subsequent requests'), implying it should be used when cached documentation is stale or problematic. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as whether to use it before or after other operations.

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