Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_brix_componentsB
  3.4/5.0
  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 mentions fuzzy matching and optional category filtering, but fails to disclose what the tool returns (e.g., full component objects or just IDs), pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, or any side 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?

  The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core function and efficiently conveys key features.

  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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not describe the return format (e.g., list of component names or details) or mention pagination limits beyond the parameter definition. The context from siblings helps but is not explicit.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value by specifying 'fuzzy matching' for the query parameter and 'optional category filtering' for the category parameter, which enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

  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 'Search BrixUI components by name, category, or description', which defines a specific verb and resource. It implies distinction from siblings like 'list_brix_components' but does not explicitly differentiate when to use search vs list.

  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 with fuzzy matching and filtering, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_brix_components'. No 'when not to use' or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• list_brix_componentsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned (names, IDs, descriptions, category groupings) and grouping behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any prerequisites, or if results are paginated, leaving safety ambiguous.

  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 concise sentences, perfectly front-loaded with the action and resource. Every phrase adds value. No redundancy or fluff.

  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 and no output schema, description adequately covers purpose, return fields, and structure (grouped by category). Missing details like 'all' vs 'available' or ordering, but sufficient for a simple list 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?

  No parameters exist, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. According to rubric, zero parameters baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info, but that is appropriate as none are needed.

  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?

  Description clearly specifies verb 'list' and resource 'components and component sets from the BrixUI Design System, grouped by category.' It distinguishes itself from siblings ('get', 'search', 'tokens') by implying a broad overview rather than detail lookup or search.

  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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies it's for listing all components grouped by category, but lacks mention of alternatives or conditions. The context of sibling tools is not leveraged.

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

• get_brix_component_detailsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly lists what the tool returns (metadata, auto-layout, variants, properties, fills, strokes, effects, child structure), giving good transparency about the output scope. It implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is sufficient for this context.

  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 very concise: two sentences. First sentence declares purpose, second enumerates what is returned. Every word serves a purpose, no redundancy. It is well front-loaded and efficient.

  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 (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects, read-only), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to use the parameter, and what to expect in return. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Minor improvement could include explaining the output structure format, but not necessary for completeness.

  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% for the sole parameter `nodeId`, so baseline is 3. The main description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's own description, which already explains the parameter and its usage. No additional semantic value is provided, so score remains at baseline.

  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 verb 'Get full details' and the resource 'specific BrixUI component by Figma node ID'. It distinguishes from siblings: `list_brix_components` returns all, `search_brix_components` finds by criteria, and `get_brix_design_tokens` is about tokens, making this tool's purpose unique and precise.

  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 implies usage when you have a specific nodeId and need full component details. The parameter description explicitly directs to use `list_brix_components` to find node IDs, providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with siblings, leaving room for improvement.

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

• get_brix_design_tokensA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool prefers the Figma Variables API with automatic fallback to the Styles API, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, authentication needs, or return format, which would increase 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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states purpose with examples, and the second adds technical detail about API fallback. Every word earns its place.

  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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It specifies what is retrieved and the internal logic. It could mention output format or whether filtering is possible, but for a 'get all' tool, it is adequate.

  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 no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline score for zero parameters is 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 clearly states the verb 'Retrieve', the resource 'all design tokens from BrixUI', and provides examples like colors, spacing, border radius, and typography. It distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools, which focus on components, making it easy for an agent to select correctly.

  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?

  While explicit when-to-use vs alternatives is not stated, the context is clear: this tool is for retrieving design tokens, and sibling tools are for component-related operations. The description effectively implies usage without needing explicit exclusions.

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