Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• genji_preview_normalizationC
  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 states the tool is a 'preview,' implying it is non-destructive and read-only, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'normalization' entails, what the preview output includes, or how it relates to sibling tools. For a tool with one parameter but lacking structured context, this leaves gaps in understanding.

  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 'text' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of normalization rules or input constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3.

  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: 'Preview how text would be normalized with current rules.' It specifies the action ('preview') and resource ('text normalization'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'genji_get_normalization_rules' or 'genji_search,' which prevents a score of 5.

  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 alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or contexts where this preview is useful, such as testing rules before applying them, leaving the agent with minimal usage context.

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

• genji_searchC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It hints at 'advanced normalization options' but doesn't explain what normalization entails, potential performance impacts, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a search tool with 10 parameters, 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative given the tool's complexity.

  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?

  For a search tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., text snippets, metadata), how normalization affects results, or any error conditions. The context signals indicate high complexity that isn't addressed.

  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 fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond the generic mention of 'normalization options,' which loosely relates to some boolean parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 ('Search') and target resource ('classical Japanese texts'), and mentions the key feature ('advanced normalization options'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'genji_get_normalization_rules' and 'genji_preview_normalization' by being the primary search function, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

  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 alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or compare it to sibling tools like 'genji_get_normalization_rules' or 'genji_preview_normalization' for specific use cases.

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

• genji_health_checkB
  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 carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the purpose but lacks details on what 'health status' entails (e.g., response format, metrics), whether it's safe or has side effects, or any operational constraints like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that might inform system reliability.

  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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy, making it easy for an agent 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the health check returns (e.g., status codes, details), which is critical for a diagnostic tool. For a tool with no structured behavioral hints, this leaves the agent guessing about results.

  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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information 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 action ('check') and target ('health status of the Genji API'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this health check from sibling tools like genji_get_normalization_rules or genji_search, which prevents a perfect score.

  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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing (e.g., before other operations), or how it relates to sibling tools, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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

• genji_get_normalization_rulesB
  3.2/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the list takes. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that retrieves data.

  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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate as a basic read operation. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or behavioral constraints that would help an agent use it effectively, especially with sibling tools present.

  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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is justified since the schema fully handles the parameter aspect.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('list of available text normalization rules'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'genji_preview_normalization' or 'genji_search', which likely involve normalization rules in different ways.

  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 alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'genji_preview_normalization' (which might show rule effects) or 'genji_search' (which might apply rules), leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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