Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• check_ugrep_installationB
  3.4/5.0
  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 what the tool does (check installation status and provide instructions) but doesn't describe how it performs these checks (e.g., system calls, file existence), what format the instructions come in, whether it has side effects, or any error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Check if ugrep is installed') and adds secondary function ('and get installation instructions') without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

  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 tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic 'what' but not the 'how' or behavioral details. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally explain what the return value looks like (e.g., boolean status plus text instructions) to be more helpful, but it's adequate for this simple tool.

  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 (empty schema), so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps. This is efficient and avoids unnecessary information.

  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 with specific verbs ('check' and 'get') and resources ('ugrep installation'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes between two related functions (verification and instruction retrieval) but doesn't need sibling differentiation since there are no sibling tools. The description avoids tautology by not simply restating the tool name.

  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 (when you need to verify ugrep installation or get installation help) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools, the lack of comparative guidance is less critical, but it still doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusion criteria beyond the implied context.

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