Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• route_painpointB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds the behavioral trait 'this does not perform external actions,' which clarifies its read-only nature beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=false). This is valuable context, though additional details (e.g., what triggers a pack selection, potential errors) are omitted.

  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?

  Two concise sentences: the first defines the core action, the second adds a crucial caveat. No filler or redundant content. Front-loaded with the primary function.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  Given the complexity (11 parameters, 6 required, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a 'lightweight action preview' is, how the pack is selected, or what the return value contains. The agent has insufficient information to effectively invoke the tool.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of any of the 11 parameters (6 required). The parameters (offer, stage, bottleneck, etc.) are not described, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding beyond their names. This is a critical gap.

  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's purpose: diagnose a solo-founder painpoint, select a Solodot execution pack, and return a lightweight action preview. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (export, generate, get, review) by focusing on routing and diagnosis.

  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 mentions the tool does not perform external actions, which indirectly guides when to use it (for non-execution tasks). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it compared to siblings or alternative approaches. No usage context or exclusion criteria are provided.

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

• get_solodot_runA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing what the tool returns (diagnosis, assets, approval history, latest step), providing context beyond the 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, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output.

  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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what data is returned. However, it lacks edge case information (e.g., error handling, null fields) and does not mention return format.

  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%, and the tool description does not explain the 'runId' parameter. The agent must infer its purpose from the name alone, which is insufficient for a required parameter.

  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 verb 'return' and the resource 'Solodot run', and lists the specific data returned (diagnosis, assets, approval history, latest step). This distinguishes it from siblings like export_solodot_run or generate_execution_asset.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for inspecting a run, but does not state when not to use it or mention sibling tools.

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

• export_solodot_runA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by clarifying the tool returns content only and does not write files or publish, reinforcing the annotations. It does not cover error cases like unapproved runs, but overall it aids understanding.

  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 information. The first sentence states core purpose, and the second adds behavioral clarification. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning a high score.

  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 tool with good annotations and two parameters, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lacks details about error conditions (e.g., unapproved run) and return structure, which could be helpful given no output schema.

  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%. The description mentions output formats ('Markdown or JSON'), which hints at the format parameter, but does not describe runId or provide additional meaning for either parameter. The schema itself provides basic info, but the description adds minimal parameter guidance.

  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 an approved execution asset in Markdown or JSON format. The verb 'Return' and resource 'approved execution asset' are specific. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like generate_execution_asset by focusing on export of an already approved asset.

  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 exporting approved runs but does not explicitly compare with siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but lacks direct alternative differentiation.

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

• generate_execution_assetA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that the asset is 'preview-only' and that the pack cannot be changed, which provides useful but limited further context about side effects. No mention of auth or rate limits.

  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 and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without fluff or redundancy.

  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?

  The tool has 2 parameters and no output schema. The description states the pack is selected by route_painpoint, but does not describe the output format, what corrections are for, or what to do after generation. Given the complexity, more context would be helpful.

  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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of 'runId' or 'corrections' beyond what the schema defines (e.g., lengths). This forces the agent to infer parameter semantics.

  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 generates a preview-only execution asset for a pack selected by route_painpoint, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like route_painpoint (selection) and review_execution_asset (review).

  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 specifies that this tool should be used after route_painpoint and that the pack cannot be changed, providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings.

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

• review_execution_assetA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds transparency by specifying that approval 'never executes the asset externally,' providing important behavioral context beyond the 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 two sentences, directly states purpose and a key constraint, with no redundant or extraneous content.

  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?

  The description provides core purpose and a behavioral constraint, but lacks explanation of parameters and return values. With 4 parameters and no output schema, additional detail would improve completeness.

  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. However, it does not explain what runId or assetId refer to, nor does it describe the allowed decision values beyond naming the enum. The optional reason parameter is not mentioned.

  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 records approve, revise, or reject decisions for a generated Solodot asset, and emphasizes that approval is only acceptance, not external execution. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_execution_asset or export_solodot_run.

  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 when to use the tool (to review an asset) and clarifies a key constraint (no external execution), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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