Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• whois_tldC
  2.5/5.0
  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. It only states what the tool does without mentioning any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly more structured by including basic usage hints.

  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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and return values, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

  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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't add any parameter details beyond implying the 'tld' parameter is required. It doesn't explain what a TLD is, provide examples (e.g., '.com', '.org'), or discuss format constraints, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

  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 action ('looks up') and resource ('whois information about the Top Level Domain (TLD)'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'whois_domain' or 'whois_ip', but the focus on TLDs provides some implicit distinction.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'whois_domain' or 'whois_ip'. The description implies it's for TLDs specifically, but doesn't clarify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

• whois_domainC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('looksup whois information') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what specific whois information is returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

  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?

  Extremely concise - a single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

  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 zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It states the basic purpose but lacks crucial context about behavior, parameters, and results needed for effective tool use. For a whois lookup tool, more detail about return values and constraints would be expected.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'domain' but provides no semantic context beyond what's in the schema (a required string). No details on domain format (e.g., TLD requirements, validation), examples, or constraints are given. The description adds minimal value over the bare schema.

  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: 'Looksup whois information about the domain' - a specific verb ('looksup') and resource ('whois information about the domain'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings (whois_as, whois_ip, whois_tld), but the domain focus is implied. Not tautological with the name 'whois_domain'.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools or provide context for choosing domain lookups over AS, IP, or TLD lookups. Usage is implied by the domain parameter but not explicitly stated.

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

• whois_asC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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. It mentions the action ('looksup') but doesn't describe what the lookup entails (e.g., data sources, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format). For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 tool's complexity (a lookup operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like data sources, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively in context.

  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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is an ASN. However, it doesn't explain the ASN format (e.g., 'AS12345') or provide examples, which the schema's pattern does. With one parameter and low coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

  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 action ('looksup') and resource ('whois information about the Autonomous System Number (ASN)'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like whois_domain, whois_ip, and whois_tld, which would require mentioning it specifically handles ASNs rather than domains, IPs, or TLDs.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (whois_domain, whois_ip, whois_tld), nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative contexts. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate usage scenarios.

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

• whois_ipC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions 'whois information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only query, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format might be. The description is too vague to provide adequate transparency for a tool with no annotations.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, straightforward sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the typo ('looksup') slightly detracts from clarity. There's no wasted text, but it could be more polished.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, output expectations, and usage context relative to siblings. For a tool with these gaps, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance to be effective.

  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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'ip' parameter is for looking up whois information, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema's format hints (IPv4/IPv6) provide. The description is minimal and doesn't explain parameter usage, constraints, or examples, resulting in a baseline score.

  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 verb ('looksup') and resource ('whois information about the IP'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying IP lookup rather than AS, domain, or TLD lookups. However, 'looksup' contains a typo and could be more precise about what 'whois information' entails.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (whois_as, whois_domain, whois_tld). It implies usage for IPs but doesn't specify alternatives or exclusions, such as when to choose this over other whois tools based on input type.

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