Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• delete_bookmarkA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true) by stating 'permanently delete', and adds the context 'from the reading list', which is not covered by annotations. No contradictions.

  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 sentence, concise, and front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word is necessary, no extraneous 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 simple tool with 1 parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the purpose and effect, though it does not mention the output or any side effects beyond deletion.

  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 a single parameter 'id' described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own description, 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 'Permanently delete' and the resource 'bookmark from the reading list', making the tool's purpose explicit and distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_bookmark, mark_read, and search_bookmarks.

  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 or not use this tool. It only states what it does, without mentioning alternatives or prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

• add_bookmarkA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Adds context beyond annotations by stating duplicate rejection and return of created bookmark with id. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.).

  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 with zero waste; front-loaded with the primary action and key behaviors.

  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?

  Covers core behavior, duplicate rejection, and return value. With full schema and annotations, it's mostly complete, though could mention scope (user's own list) or error handling.

  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 are described in the schema. Description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what's in 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?

  Description clearly states the action ('Save a URL to the user's reading list'), the specific resource, and distinguishes from siblings like delete_bookmark and mark_read by focusing on creation.

  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?

  Mentions rejecting duplicates, which implies not to add existing URLs, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_bookmarks or mark_read.

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

• mark_readA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description adds 'safe to call repeatedly', reinforcing the idempotentHint annotation. However, it does not elaborate on what happens if the bookmark doesn't exist or other edge cases. Given annotations cover destructive and idempotent hints, the description adds minimal extra transparency.

  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?

  Extremely concise: two short sentences with no redundancy. The action is front-loaded, and every word adds value.

  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 idempotent mutation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the core behavior and safety, though it could mention return type or error behavior (but output schema likely handles that).

  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 schema already fully describes the single 'id' parameter (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the 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 action (mark a bookmark as read) and distinguishes it from sibling tools (add, delete, search) which serve different purposes.

  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 explicitly mentions it is safe to call repeatedly, indicating idempotency. Although it doesn't compare to alternatives, the tool's simple nature and distinct siblings make usage clear.

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

• search_bookmarksA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with description. Description adds the behavior of listing most recent bookmarks when called without arguments, but otherwise does not elaborate on return format, pagination, or other behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.

  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 purpose and search dimensions, second notes the default behavior. Very efficient, no filler.

  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?

  Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Description covers all intended uses (search, list) and parameter categories. Given low complexity and good schema support, it is completely adequate.

  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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description summarizes them concisely but adds no new meaning 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?

  Description clearly states verb 'search' and resource 'reading list', specifies searchable dimensions (free text, tag, read status) and a default behavior (list recent). It distinguishes from siblings that add, delete, or mark read.

  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?

  Description explicitly states when to use (search by criteria or list recent) but does not directly mention when not to use or point to siblings as alternatives. The context of sibling tools implies alternatives, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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