Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• add-docC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  The description only says 'Stores a new document or updates an existing one,' but lacks details on whether updates are partial or full replacements, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient behavioral context.

  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 concise and front-loaded, but it is too brief to convey necessary detail. No wasted words, but could be expanded.

  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 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain behavior on duplicate IDs, confirm creation vs update, or return type. More context is needed.

  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 input schema covers all 7 parameters with descriptions, so the description adds no additional semantic value. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 adds or updates documentation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-doc which only retrieve. However, it does not explicitly differentiate between the add and update behaviors.

  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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like search-docs or list-categories.

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

• fetch-library-docsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided; the description only says 'automatically retrieves up-to-date documentation from the web.' It omits details on caching, network requirements, error handling, or rate limits. The agent cannot infer potential side effects or constraints.

  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?

  Two short sentences that state purpose and automation. No fluff, but could be more efficient by including key behavioral notes in the same length.

  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?

  No output schema; the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., raw text, markdown, error format). Given simple parameters, the agent still lacks information to anticipate the response format. Also unclear how this differs from 'search-docs' in terms of scope.

  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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully describes both parameters. The description adds 'Optional: Specific topic to search for' for query, but this merely restates the schema's description. No additional semantic depth beyond the 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 fetches official documentation from online sources for libraries/frameworks, with examples. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add-doc' (likely local addition) and 'search-docs' (possibly local search), but more explicit differentiation would improve clarity.

  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 does not mention prerequisites, edge cases, or scenarios where other tools like 'search-docs' might be preferred.

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

• get-docA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 it returns complete content, which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose any potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Adequate for a simple read.

  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, 14 words, front-loaded with action. Every word earns its place. No redundancy.

  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 a single simple parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It tells what it does and what parameter is needed. Could mention error handling or return format, but adequate for a simple get-by-ID.

  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% with one parameter 'id'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already documents 'Document ID'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 'get full documentation by ID' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like search-docs and list-categories, but could be more explicit about what constitutes 'full documentation'.

  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 when you have a document ID, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search-docs or fetch-library-docs. No explicit when-not or exclusions.

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

• search-docsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns relevant documents but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, rate limits, or scope. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly confirmed.

  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 concise with two sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

  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?

  For a search tool with 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and basic parameters but lacks details about return format, pagination, error handling, or performance implications. It is complete enough for basic use but not thorough.

  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%, and the description adds limited value beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions the parameters (query, category, tags) but does not elaborate on their semantics or usage beyond the existing schema descriptions.

  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 tool searches internal documentation and returns relevant documents based on query, category, and tags. It distinguishes from siblings like add-doc and get-doc by focusing on search functionality.

  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 for searching documentation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-doc (single document retrieval) or list-available-libraries. No exclusions or context about when not to use it are given.

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

• list-available-librariesA
  3.8/5.0
  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 clearly states the tool lists libraries with documentation sources, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose whether authentication or state effects exist, though the operation is simple enough that this is minimally adequate.

  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 of 8 words that front-loads the action ('List all libraries'). No word is wasted, and it efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

  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?

  For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete. It states the filtering condition and lists libraries. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of names or objects), which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

  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?

  There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying the filtering condition ('known documentation sources configured'), which is not present in the empty schema. Per guidelines, 0 params yields a baseline of 4.

  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 uses the specific verb 'list' and resource 'libraries' with a clear filter condition 'that have known documentation sources configured'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-categories or search-docs.

  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 siblings, nor are there any when-not-to-use or prerequisite mentions. The description only states the purpose without contextual usage advice.

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

• list-categoriesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the tool lists all categories, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety, side effects, or prerequisites. For a simple read operation, it is minimally adequate.

  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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

  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 zero parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools that provide context, the description is complete enough for a simple listing tool. It does not elaborate on return format or what categories are, but the purpose is clear.

  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?

  There are no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, but with zero parameters, there is nothing to add. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.

  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 'List all available documentation categories' is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly states the tool lists categories, which is distinct from sibling tools that deal with docs or libraries.

  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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool is simple and the context is clear from sibling names, the description does not explicitly state usage context or exclusions.

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