Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_user_mentionsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided. Description notes single-request behavior and cursor-based pagination, which adds transparency, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, errors, or response structure.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then pagination behavior. No unnecessary words.

  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?

  Without an output schema, the description should explain response structure more. It mentions next_cursor but not full response format, defaults, or error handling. Adequate but not fully self-contained.

  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 all parameters have descriptions. The tool description references 'cursor' but adds no new semantics beyond the schema.

  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 'Fetch tweets mentioning a specific X/Twitter user', which is a specific verb+resource. Sibling tools are for thread context, creating, and deleting, so this distinguishes well.

  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 vs alternatives. While pagination handling is described, there is no when/when-not or comparison to siblings.

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

• create_tweetA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It notes the use of v2 endpoint and auth via cookies, but omits details like the irreversible nature of posting, rate limits, or that it's a write operation. Some transparency but not comprehensive.

  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 sentences: first states the action, second details authentication requirements. No extraneous information; clear and front-loaded.

  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?

  With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description could discuss return values or error handling. It covers the core function and auth but lacks completeness for a complex tool.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific insights, maintaining the 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 tool creates or replies to a tweet via the v2 endpoint. It uses a specific verb and resource and is distinct from siblings like get_user_mentions or delete_tweet.

  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 required environment variables (auth_token, ct0, proxy) and the cookie mechanism, which are prerequisites. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools but the context implies use for tweet creation, not reading or deletion.

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

• delete_tweetA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature (delete), ownership requirement, and authentication mechanism via login_cookies. It does not mention reversibility or side effects, but these are typical for a delete operation.

  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 long, with the first sentence stating the action and constraint, and the second adding authentication context. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded.

  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 delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: action, target, ownership requirement, and auth setup. It does not explain error behavior or return values, but these are not critical given the simplicity.

  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%, with the single parameter `tweet_id` described as 'The ID of the tweet to delete'. The description adds context about ownership and auth but does not add new detail about the parameter itself, resulting in adequate but minimal added 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 clearly states 'Delete a tweet by ID' and adds the ownership constraint, distinguishing it from read-only or creation siblings like get_user_mentions and create_tweet.

  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?

  It specifies that the tweet must be owned by the logged-in account and mentions the required authentication setup, giving clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the ownership condition implies it.

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

• get_tweet_thread_contextA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses return structure: 'original tweet, intermediate replies up the chain, the tweet itself, and direct replies; each tweet includes entities.urls'. It also notes pagination irregularity and single-request nature. Comprehensive for a non-annotated 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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds unique value without repetition. No filler or redundant phrasing.

  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?

  Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (including expanded URLs) and pagination mechanics. Covers all aspects needed for correct invocation: purpose, parameters, behavior, and return structure.

  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 adds minor value by explaining the cursor parameter's usage ('pass next_cursor back as cursor'), but the schema already describes both parameters adequately. No additional semantics beyond what schema provides.

  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 'Fetch', the resource 'conversation thread around a tweet', and the specific use case 'to find links in context'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_user_mentions, create_tweet, delete_tweet) by focusing on thread context and link extraction.

  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 explains pagination behavior: 'Makes exactly one request per call' and 'pages are uneven... so pass next_cursor back as cursor'. It implies when to use (when needing thread context with links) but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives besides sibling names.

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