Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_recent_commentsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the time filter and default, but omits ordering (likely newest first), pagination, or limits beyond max_threads. The return format is unspecified.

  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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids 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?

  Given the low complexity (no nested objects, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete for a basic time-filtered query. However, it lacks details on what constitutes 'activity' and the response structure, which would be helpful for an AI agent.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema (e.g., reiterates default 24). It does not clarify parameter relationships or elaborate on optional parameters.

  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 tool retrieves comment threads filtered by time since last activity, with a default of 24 hours. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_all_comments (no time filter) and get_unresolved_comments (status filter).

  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 use for recent activity but does not mention exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like get_comments_mentioning_me or get_all_comments.

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

• get_unresolved_commentsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It only states what it retrieves but does not disclose ordering, inclusivity of replies, read-only nature, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral info.

  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?

  Single sentence with no extraneous words. Highly concise and to the point.

  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?

  Despite high schema coverage, the description lacks information about return value format, pagination, or thread structure. With no output schema and a moderate parameter count, the description is insufficiently 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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter info, meeting the baseline expectation.

  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?

  Description states 'Comment threads not yet marked resolved in Figma', clearly indicating retrieval of unresolved threads. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the Figma file resource, though the parameter 'url' implies it.

  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 siblings like 'get_all_comments'. The description does not differentiate use cases or mention any conditions for choosing this tool.

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

• get_comments_mentioning_meB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the basic purpose and does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, read-only status, pagination behavior, or what happens when no mentions are 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 but lacks additional structure or front-loading of key info.

  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?

  Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain edge cases, the nature of comment threads, or how the mention filter works, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

  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?

  Parameter schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each 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 states that the tool returns comment threads where the token owner is @mentioned. The verb 'get' and resource 'comments mentioning me' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_all_comments and get_unresolved_comments.

  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 the tool is for retrieving comments mentioning the user, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention 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.

• get_all_commentsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses return format (grouped, resolved as count) and implies broad fetch, but lacks details on pagination, performance impact, or maximum result handling beyond the max_threads parameter. No annotations provided.

  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 plus a usage note, all front-loaded with the core functionality. No redundant 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?

  Covers the main behavior and filtering options, but lacks explanation of how filters interact (e.g., author + search), and does not detail the output structure further due to missing output schema. Still adequate for the tool's complexity.

  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 does not add new semantic meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides; usage guidance is about tool selection, not parameter details.

  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?

  Clearly states that the tool fetches every comment thread, grouped by page and canvas element, and that resolved threads are returned as a count. It also contrasts with narrower sibling tools by advising when to prefer them.

  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?

  Explicitly advises to use a narrower tool (unresolved/recent/mentions) or the page argument when they suffice, providing clear decision criteria for the agent.

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

• reply_to_commentA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description fully handles behavioral disclosure. It specifies the required scope ('File comments write'), notes that message is plain text and '@Name' mentions are sent as plain text (not parsed), providing clear expectations.

  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?

  Three sentences with no waste. First sentence states core action, second provides key parameter guidance, third covers permissions and format. Each sentence earns its place.

  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?

  Given three required parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers all necessary context: input details, where to find comment_id, plain text behavior, and required permissions. No gaps remain.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds significant value: it explains comment_id source (from brackets in fetch output) and clarifies how message handles mentions. This goes 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 'Post a reply to an existing comment thread in a Figma file.' It specifies the resource (comments in Figma files) and the action (reply). It distinguishes from siblings like get_all_comments, which are read-only.

  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 explicit guidance on using the thread id from fetch output in brackets. It implies this is for replying only, not creating threads, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool suggestions.

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