Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• bulletA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool analyzes, validates, and improves lists, returns a JSON with score and issues, and enforces scientific principles. It does not mention destructive actions or auth needs, but as a validation tool, the behavior is clear. Could be slightly more explicit about whether it modifies input.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (INPUT MODES, WHEN TO USE, KEY PRINCIPLES, etc.) and front-loaded with the main purpose. While it is lengthy, the detail is justified by the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects). Each section adds value, but a few sentences could be trimmed without loss.

  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?

  Given the relatively complex input schema (6 parameters with nested objects) and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers input modes, usage context, principles enforced, scoring output structure, and even per-section context overrides. An agent can fully understand how to invoke the tool and what to expect.

  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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining flat vs sectioned mode, the 3-7 item rule per section, and context options. This additional guidance helps the agent select the correct parameter combination, justifying a 4.

  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 validates and improves bullet point lists using cognitive research. It specifies the action (validate, improve), the resource (bullet lists), and the methodology (evidence-based cognitive research). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from any sibling (none provided).

  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?

  The description includes a 'WHEN TO USE' section with explicit scenarios like finalizing summaries, creating documentation, and scoring content. It also explains the difference between flat and sectioned modes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide alternatives, missing a small opportunity for full guidance.

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