Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• apg_get_exampleA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate read-only behavior. The description adds that the output includes placeholders for binary assets, which is extra context but not deep behavioral insight. No contradictions with 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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the essential information.

  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, no output schema, and good annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It states what the output contains (HTML, CSS, JS, placeholders). However, it could be more specific about the response format (e.g., structured files array vs. markdown blocks), which is partially covered by the format parameter description.

  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 description does not add meaning beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is 67% (patternId missing description); the tool description does not explain patternId. For format and exampleSlug, schema descriptions are adequate. Thus the description is neutral and does not compensate for gaps.

  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 identifies the tool as providing example source code for an APG demo, specifying it includes HTML, CSS, JS, and binary placeholders. It distinguishes from siblings like apg_get_pattern (pattern metadata) and apg_list_patterns (listing patterns). However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'retrieve') and could be more direct about its action.

  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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implicitly clear that it is for obtaining example source code, but no comparative or contextual usage notes are provided.

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

• apg_get_patternA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the output format (Markdown, requirements, keyboard, ARIA, example summaries with live URLs), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

  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 front-loads the key purpose and content of the response. No unnecessary words.

  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 output schema, the description adequately describes the response as full pattern documentation in Markdown and example summaries with live URLs. It covers the essential aspects for a retrieval tool, though it could mention the structure or metadata included.

  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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides for patternId and includeMarkdown; it only reiterates the concept of documentation.

  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 explicitly states it returns 'full pattern documentation as Markdown' covering requirements, keyboard, ARIA, etc., plus example summaries with live URLs. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like apg_list_patterns (which lists patterns) and apg_get_example (which gets a specific example).

  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 provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion scenarios.

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

• apg_list_patternsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the behavior of listing all pattern ids and titles with a case-insensitive substring filter. Annotations already mark it as readOnly and not open-world, and the description confirms safe read operation. No contradictions.

  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: two sentences, no redundant words. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the filter detail is added immediately. 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?

  For a simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what is returned (ids and titles) and the filter behavior. It does not specify the response format (e.g., JSON array), but the output is predictable for a list.

  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 a description for the 'query' parameter. The description adds the detail 'case-insensitive substring', which goes beyond the schema's 'optional substring filter'. This extra information helps the agent understand the parameter behavior.

  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 'List all APG pattern ids and titles', specifying the verb (list), resource (APG patterns), and output (ids and titles). It includes an optional filter, and the name and description together distinguish from siblings like apg_get_pattern and apg_semantic_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?

  The description implies that this tool is for listing all patterns with optional filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives such as apg_get_pattern for a single pattern or apg_semantic_search for semantic queries. The context from sibling names helps, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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

• apg_semantic_searchA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already confirm read-only and non-open-world. Description adds that it is RAG-based, returns similarity chunks with patternId/slug, and requires an index, which is useful behavioral context beyond 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?

  Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then output details and prerequisite. No unnecessary words.

  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 output schema, description explains return structure (chunks with patternId, slug). Also mentions follow-up tools and requirement. Could expand on chunk content but adequate for a search tool with clear annotations.

  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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description does not add significant semantic value for parameters beyond what schema already provides, though it hints at output format.

  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?

  Clearly states it performs natural-language semantic search over APG pattern Markdown and example source text, returning chunks with identifiers. Differentiates from sibling tools like apg_get_pattern (fetch full docs) and apg_list_patterns (list all patterns) by focusing on search.

  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?

  Provides prerequisite (pre-built index) and suggests follow-up tools for full docs. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other tools, the context and siblings make usage boundaries clear.

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

• apg_metaA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds detail about returned metadata fields, which is helpful and consistent.

  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?

  Single sentence, no fluff. Efficiently communicates purpose and content.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

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

  Zero complexity, no parameters, good annotations. Description fully addresses what the tool does and what it returns.

  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; schema coverage is 100% by default. Baseline score of 4 applies as no parameter information is 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?

  The description clearly states the tool returns APG dataset metadata including source commit, generation time, and link to patterns index. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (list, get, search) by focusing on metadata.

  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?

  No explicit when-to-use or alternatives mentioned, but with zero parameters and a clear metadata purpose, usage is self-evident. The description implies use for dataset context.

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