Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_docsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description reveals a non-obvious behavioral trait: caching performance (sub-ms on hit, 5-60s on miss first time, with fetch+ingest+index). Since no annotations are provided, this adds valuable transparency about potential delays and internal caching side effects, though it does not fully detail side effects or permissions.

  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 two sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core purpose and uses the second sentence for performance details, making it efficiently concise.

  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 has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose and performance but misses key contextual details like version semantics and usage guidance. It is not fully complete for correct invocation, though output schema likely explains return structure.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It refers to 'library and query', mapping to library_id and query, but entirely omits the optional 'version' parameter, leaving the agent without clarity on its purpose or when to provide it.

  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 a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'relevant documentation chunks' and scope 'for a library and query'. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'versions' and 'resolve_library_id' by focusing on retrieving content rather than metadata or ID resolution.

  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. Sibling tools exist, but the description does not mention them or any exclusions, leaving the agent without explicit usage context.

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

• versionsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that data comes from npm/PyPI and may be unavailable, which is useful. However, it does not mention behavior for unknown library_id or provide details beyond the output schema, leaving some gaps.

  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 action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 one-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the core action and a data availability caveat. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and parameter details, and with no annotations, the overall context remains somewhat incomplete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'for a library' indicates library_id identifies a library, but it does not specify the format, range, or how to obtain the ID (e.g., via resolve_library_id). This adds minimal semantic value.

  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 known versions for a library' uses a specific verb and resource, and further specifies the data source (npm/PyPI). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools get_docs and resolve_library_id, which serve different purposes.

  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 phrase 'bila tersedia' (if available) implies when the tool might return no results, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over siblings. Usage context is only partially implied.

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

• resolve_library_idA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden and reveals the output includes 'candidate library IDs with trust scores and latest version', which goes beyond schema. It also notes that 'query' can disambiguate. It doesn't discuss side effects or error handling, but for a lookup-style tool this is reasonable behavior 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, well-structured sentence conveys the core purpose and both parameters without padding. The examples are front-loaded and every clause adds value, making it easily scannable.

  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?

  The description covers the essential purpose, parameter roles, and high-level output (trust scores, latest version). With an output schema present and only two simple parameters, this is adequate. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. siblings, but that is partially covered by purpose clarity, so a 4 is appropriate.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines library_name with examples and explains query as optional disambiguating context. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the empty schema, though it could be more detailed (e.g., constraints on query).

  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 a specific verb 'Resolve' and identifies the resource: library name to candidate library IDs. It also gives concrete examples ('flask', 'nextjs') and distinguishes from sibling tools by clearly stating the mapping from name to IDs, which get_docs and versions do not do.

  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 by stating the tool resolves library names and mentions optional query context for disambiguation. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_docs or versions, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or alternative guidance.

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