Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• lint_tonel_smalltalkC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Lint Tonel formatted Smalltalk source code' without explaining what linting entails (e.g., errors/warnings output, whether it is destructive, or how it handles invalid input). This is a significant gap.

  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 sentence with no wasted words. However, given the lack of other context (annotations, usage guidelines), it may be too concise to fully support tool selection.

  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?

  Although an output schema exists (reducing need to describe return values), the description fails to clarify differences from sibling validate tools or specify input format expectations. The context of sibling tools calls for more differentiation and behavioral detail.

  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 already describes the single parameter 'file_content' as 'The Tonel file content as a string'. The description adds minimal value beyond this ('from content string'), but schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 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 uses the specific verb 'Lint' and resource 'Tonel formatted Smalltalk source code', and specifies the input source 'from content string'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'lint_tonel_smalltalk_from_file', which likely takes a file path instead of a content string.

  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 implies use when you have a content string, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_tonel_smalltalk or validate_smalltalk_method_body. There is no guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from validating tools.

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

• lint_tonel_smalltalk_from_fileB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Lint', which implies analysis but does not describe output format, side effects, error handling, or permissions. The fact that an output schema exists is not leveraged to clarify behavior.

  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, concise sentence with no redundancy. However, for a tool lacking annotations, it may be too brief; a slightly longer description could improve context without sacrificing conciseness.

  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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the linting produces, how to interpret results, or how it differs from sibling validate tools. More context is needed for an agent to use it effectively.

  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 already describes the parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description neither improves nor detracts from parameter understanding.

  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 'lint' and the resource 'Tonel formatted Smalltalk source code from a file', differentiating it from sibling tools like 'lint_tonel_smalltalk' which likely operates on non-file input. It provides a specific and unambiguous purpose.

  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 (e.g., validate tools or lint without file path). No when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, relying solely on the tool name for differentiation.

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

• validate_tonel_smalltalk_from_fileB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose side effects (likely none), what happens on validation failure, or any return format beyond what the output schema might imply. The description is too brief to convey behavioral traits.

  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 conveys the core purpose without extra words.

  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 availability of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important contextual details like expected file extensions, error handling behavior, or how validation results are returned. For a validation tool, this gap is notable.

  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%, and the description largely repeats schema descriptions for both parameters. For 'options', it adds a minor example ('without-method-body'), but this is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no extra meaning is added.

  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 it validates Tonel Smalltalk source code from a file. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like validate_tonel_smalltalk or lint_tonel_smalltalk_from_file, which likely operate differently.

  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 its siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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

• validate_smalltalk_method_bodyB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It only states 'validate for syntax correctness' without mentioning side effects, return format, or error behavior. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

  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?

  A single sentence conveying the core purpose with no extraneous words. Efficient and to the point.

  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?

  With only one parameter and an output schema (though not shown), the description is adequate but could mention return format or error handling. Given the tool's simplicity, it's moderately complete.

  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 covers 100% of parameters with a clear description for 'method_body_content'. The description adds no new information beyond the schema, meeting baseline for high coverage.

  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 'Validate', the resource 'Smalltalk method body', and the scope 'for syntax correctness'. It distinguishes from siblings which deal with files or linting.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like validate_tonel_smalltalk or lint. The name implies it's for method body strings, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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

• validate_tonel_smalltalkA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the basic validation action, lacking details on what happens on failure, return value, or side effects. The output schema exists but is not described in the tool description.

  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, concise sentence of 10 words. No unnecessary information is present, and the purpose is immediately clear.

  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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, the minimal description lacks context about validation checks performed or the overall behavior. It is adequate but not rich.

  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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (file_content and options). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the action (validate), the resource (Tonel formatted Smalltalk source code), and the input source (content string). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like validate_tonel_smalltalk_from_file by specifying 'from content string'.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. However, the sibling names (e.g., validate_tonel_smalltalk_from_file) imply that this tool is for string content, providing implicit guidance. No exclusions or when-not-to-use details are given.

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