Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_peripheralsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's read-only nature and output format, but lacks details on error handling, file format constraints, or performance characteristics. It doesn't contradict any annotations, but could benefit from more operational context.

  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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first explains what the tool does and returns, the second provides usage context. There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it highly efficient and front-loaded with 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?

  For a single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about error conditions or output format specifics to achieve full 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, clearly documenting the single required parameter 'svd_file'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage situations.

  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 specific action ('List all peripherals'), resource ('in an ARM CMSIS SVD file'), and output format ('Returns each peripheral's name, base address, and description'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'describe_field', 'lookup_register', and 'search_registers' by focusing on peripheral discovery rather than register-level operations.

  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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to discover what hardware blocks are available in a microcontroller'), which implicitly suggests it's for initial exploration rather than detailed register analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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

• describe_fieldA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 mentions the tool describes field attributes (e.g., access type, enumerated values), which implies a read-only, informational operation. However, it lacks details on error handling, output format, or any behavioral constraints (e.g., file access requirements, performance limits), leaving gaps in transparency for a tool with no annotation support.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear usage guideline. Both sentences are essential and waste no words, making it efficient and easy to parse for an agent selecting tools.

  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 annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and usage. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what the output looks like, error cases) and does not compensate for the absence of structured fields. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, more contextual information would improve 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters (svd_file, peripheral, register, field) well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting, but no extra semantic value is added.

  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 specific action ('Describe a specific bit-field') and resource ('within a register'), listing key attributes like bit offset, width, access type, and enumerated values. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., list_peripherals, lookup_register) by focusing on detailed field-level information rather than peripheral/register listing or lookup.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this when you need to understand or set a specific control bit or flag.' This provides clear context for usage versus alternatives, guiding the agent to select this tool for detailed field analysis rather than broader operations offered by siblings.

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

• lookup_registerA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 implies a read-only operation ('Get full details') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, performance characteristics, or output format. While it adds context about low-level firmware use, it lacks details on what happens if inputs are invalid or how results are structured.

  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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and key details, and the second provides usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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 annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete but has gaps. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks behavioral details like error cases or output structure. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no structured output, more context on what 'full details' includes would improve completeness, though it's adequate for basic use.

  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 the schema already documents all three parameters (svd_file, peripheral, register) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying they are used to locate a specific register, which is already evident from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 specific action ('Get full details') and resource ('for a specific register within a peripheral'), listing concrete attributes like address offset, size, access type, reset value, and bit-fields. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by specifying exact register layout for low-level firmware code, unlike broader tools like list_peripherals or search_registers.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need exact register layout for low-level firmware code'), implying alternatives like search_registers for broader queries or describe_field for bit-level details. It clearly defines the context without exclusions, helping the agent choose correctly among siblings.

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

• search_registersA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the search scope (all peripherals and registers), matching method (case-insensitive substring), and result limits (up to 10 matches with specific fields). However, it lacks details on error handling, performance expectations, or pagination for results beyond 10.

  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 front-loaded with the core functionality in the first sentence and follows with usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value—no redundant or vague phrasing. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and clear purpose.

  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 moderate complexity (search function with two parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behaviors. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail the structure of returned matches (e.g., field types or ordering), leaving a minor gap in full 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the case-insensitive substring match for the query parameter, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. This meets the baseline for 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 states the specific action ('Search across all peripherals and registers'), the resource ('in an SVD file'), and the method ('case-insensitive substring match'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing its cross-peripheral search capability, unlike tools that might focus on specific peripherals or registers.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when you know part of a register name but not which peripheral it belongs to.' This provides clear guidance on its intended context and distinguishes it from alternatives like list_peripherals or lookup_register, which might be used for different scenarios.

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