Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• docker_image_infoC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a generic 'get information' without specifying side effects, required permissions, network dependencies, or the nature of the returned data. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate tool behavior.

  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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the key action. No extraneous words or redundancy.

  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?

  The tool has 2 parameters and no output schema. The description fails to explain what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., layers, config, metadata). An agent cannot predict the return format or completeness without additional context.

  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% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per guidelines, baseline 3 applies; the description does not enhance understanding of parameter usage.

  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 'Get detailed information about a specific Docker image' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Docker image'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_docker_image, leaving ambiguity about what 'detailed information' entails.

  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 such as search_docker_image or package_info. The agent receives no indication of prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate context.

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

• package_infoC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It does not confirm whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or has any side effects, which is a significant gap for a tool likely performing external queries.

  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 with no wasted words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the action and resource.

  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?

  The tool has no output schema, yet the description only vaguely says 'detailed information'. It does not specify what fields or structure the response contains, leaving the agent without adequate context for handling the result.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage for parameters, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific package'. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'search_package' and 'docker_image_info', though it does not explicitly differentiate 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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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

• search_docker_imageB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the function without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or default pagination. Basic search behavior is implied but not explicitly guaranteed.

  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 with no repetition or fluff. While brief, it front-loads the core purpose, earning points for conciseness, though slightly more context could fit without becoming verbose.

  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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description suffices for a basic search. However, it does not clarify return format (e.g., tags, repositories, pagination), leaving some ambiguity for an agent. Adequate but not fully complete.

  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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Image name or search query', 'Maximum number of results'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 'Search' and the resource 'Docker images' with location 'Docker Hub', making the purpose unmistakable. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like `docker_image_info` and `search_package`.

  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 such as `docker_image_info` (for details) or `search_package` (for non-Docker packages). The description lacks any context for tool selection.

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

• terraform_module_latest_versionB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get', implying read-only, but no disclosure of potential errors, caching, rate limits, or behavior when module not found.

  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, clear sentence. It is concise and front-loaded, though slightly minimal for a simple tool.

  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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks details about return values or error states, which are needed for full 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 coverage is 100% (the single parameter is well-described). The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema's parameter description, earning a baseline score of 3.

  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: 'Get the latest version of a Terraform module'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools (docker_image_info, package_info, etc.) that deal with different domains.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or explicit when-to-use context.

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

• search_packageB
  3.4/5.0
  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 only states the basic purpose without disclosing behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the structure of the response. This is minimal transparency for a search tool.

  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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the verb and resource. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

  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?

  The description lacks information about the output format or what the search results contain. Since there is no output schema, the description should have provided context on the return structure to help the agent interpret results. This gap reduces completeness.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., listing indices that match the enum). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

  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 specifies the action 'search for packages' and the resource 'package indices', with explicit examples (PyPI, npm, crates.io, Terraform Registry). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'package_info' which likely provides details on a specific package.

  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 searching packages but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'package_info' or 'search_docker_image'. No exclusions or context-driven triggers are mentioned.

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