Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• reply_to_threadC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, required permissions, or side effects. It simply states 'reply' without elaboration.

  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 unnecessary words. However, it lacks any structural formatting (e.g., bullets) that might improve readability.

  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, the description is minimally adequate but omits important context such as return value, thread/post distinction, or authentication requirements.

  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%, so the schema already defines parameter meanings. The description adds no additional semantic value 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's function: replying to a thread/post. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'post_to_threads' which may also involve posting to threads.

  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. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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

• get_my_threadsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via 'dekho' but lacks explicit statements about idempotency, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The agent gets minimal 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, no redundant words, and front-loaded information. Every word contributes to understanding, making it efficient for quick parsing.

  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 output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of posts, fields, ordering). It does not, leaving a significant gap. Combined with the lack of annotations and limited parameter description, the tool definition is incomplete for reliable agent use.

  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 the 'limit' parameter described as 'Kitne posts (default 10)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as formatting constraints, range limits, or interplay with other parameters, so baseline score 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 tool's action: viewing recent Threads posts. The verb 'dekho' (view) and resource 'Threads posts' are specific, and the tool is easily distinguished from siblings like 'post_to_threads' (write) and 'get_thread_insights' (analytics).

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name and description.

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

• post_to_threadsB
  3.3/5.0
  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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (publish) without detailing side effects, authentication needs, or idempotency, leaving significant gaps.

  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. While it could include more detail, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

  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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and return value information, despite the tool's simplicity.

  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 does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'content max 500 characters'). Baseline 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 verb 'publish' and the resource 'new text post on Threads', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_my_threads (view) and reply_to_thread (reply).

  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 creating new posts, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• get_thread_insightsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It omits whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or how it handles errors. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, which it does not fulfill.

  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—a single sentence with a parenthetical. It front-loads the purpose with no filler words. Every part is essential and informative.

  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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the necessary output details but lacks usage context, error handling, or any additional behavioral notes. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

  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 only describes the 'thread_id' parameter. The description adds value by specifying that the returned insights include views, likes, and replies, which is not present in the schema. This clarifies the tool's output beyond the input parameter.

  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 retrieves insights (views, likes, replies) for a thread. The verb 'dekho' (see) and the parenthetical listing of metrics specify the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage profiles, threads, or posts.

  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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions under which this tool should be preferred. The sibling tools are not referenced in the description.

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

• get_my_profileA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read operation ('dekho') and lists a few fields, but lacks details on behavior such as authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the return is static or real-time.

  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 that front-loads the purpose and includes key field examples. 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.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), but the description only mentions three fields (username, bio, followers) without indicating if other profile data is available. Given no output schema, the agent lacks full understanding of return structure. Adequate but incomplete.

  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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (nothing to cover). Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, the score is 4. The description adds no parameter info because none exists.

  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 ('dekho' meaning 'see') and the resource ('your Threads profile info') with specific examples (username, bio, followers). It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools like get_my_threads.

  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 viewing one's own profile but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites. The context from sibling tool names provides some guidance, but the description itself lacks explicit usage direction.

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