Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_articleC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention what happens after creation (e.g., where the article is stored, if it's editable, permissions needed, or any side effects), leaving significant gaps for a mutation 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?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear purpose and well-documented schema, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.

  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?

  For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, where the article is created, or any behavioral nuances. Given the complexity of a 6-parameter mutation tool, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

  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 fully documents all 6 parameters with their types, defaults, and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not exceeding it.

  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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'article', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_article' or 'get_project_articles' beyond the obvious create vs. get distinction, which prevents a perfect score.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'get_article' or 'search_projects'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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

• get_articleC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states the tool retrieves an article with full content, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., invalid ID), permissions required, rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get a specific article') and adds necessary detail ('by ID with full content') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

  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's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling or response structure, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly, especially with no output schema to clarify return values.

  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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'articleId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval by ID, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

  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 verb ('Get') and resource ('article') with specificity ('by ID with full content'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project_articles' or 'search_projects', which might also retrieve articles in different contexts.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project_articles' or 'search_projects'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an article ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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

• get_project_articlesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states a read operation ('Get') but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'all articles' entails (e.g., filtering, sorting). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns multiple items.

  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, clear sentence that front-loads the core action and resource without any wasted words. It efficiently communicates the essential purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and accurately.

  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 complexity of a list-fetching tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format (e.g., array structure, fields), behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, limits), and error cases, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in real scenarios.

  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 the single parameter 'projectId' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it's used to fetch articles, matching the schema's purpose. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

  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 action ('Get all articles') and resource ('from a specific project by project ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_article' (singular vs. plural) or 'search_projects' (articles vs. projects), missing explicit distinction that would warrant a 5.

  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 this tool versus alternatives like 'get_article' (for a single article) or 'search_projects' (for project-level queries). The description implies usage by mentioning 'project ID' but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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

• search_projectsC
  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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching by name but doesn't describe traits like pagination, result format, error handling, or performance implications. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core functionality ('Search projects by name'). It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral nuances. For a search tool, this leaves critical gaps in understanding its operation and output.

  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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'projectName' documented as 'The project name to search for (partial match)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as search syntax or examples, so it meets the baseline score when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 verb ('search') and resource ('projects'), and specifies the search criterion ('by name'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_projects', which might also retrieve projects, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_projects' or other siblings. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

• get_projectsB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets all projects' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' entails (e.g., all accessible projects). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'projects' entail, how they are returned, or any constraints like ordering or limits. For a tool that likely returns a list of projects, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, aligning with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

  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 action ('Get') and resource ('projects from your article queue'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project_articles' or 'search_projects', which likely retrieve similar data with different scopes or filters.

  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 this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project_articles' or 'search_projects'. The description implies it retrieves all projects, but without context on filtering or limitations, usage scenarios are unclear.

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