Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_docsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuine context on top: it returns markdown chunks with signatures, parameter descriptions, and code examples, and it explains the daily refresh from a CDN-backed source repo. No contradiction with annotations.

  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?

  Three short paragraphs each serve a distinct purpose: what the tool does, when to use it, and how current the docs are. The purpose is front-loaded and the text is efficient, though the daily-refresh sentence is somewhat optional for invocation.

  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?

  For a read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough context: return format, usage timing, platform scope, and SDK constraints. An agent can select and invoke this tool correctly without further clarification.

  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 clearly. The description adds useful query examples and reinforces the platform filter, but it does not meaningfully expand beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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?

  States a specific verb ('search') and resource ('bundled SDK reference docs for Klaviyo and Shopify methods'), and clarifies the output format ('ranked markdown chunks'). It explicitly differentiates from execute_code by framing itself as the pre-coding lookup step, and the 'search' vs 'read' distinction separates it from read_doc even without naming it.

  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?

  Explicitly instructs the agent to use this tool BEFORE writing code in execute_code and explains why: the SDK surface is constrained to registered methods. It does not explicitly state when to prefer read_doc instead, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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

• execute_codeA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that globalThis persists across calls, that state is auto-populated as a summary-form stash, that execution is async with a default 30s wall-clock limit and configurable timeout, and that network/module access is blocked. No contradiction with the annotations.

  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 dense but every section earns its place: return shape, persistent state, available globals, discovery direction, and a reference example. The most important operational facts are front-loaded in the signature and state note.

  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 lacking an output schema, the description fully defines the return object, persistent state behavior, available globals, constraints, and a realistic usage example. An agent can invoke the tool correctly and interpret results without further documentation.

  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?

  Although the schema already covers the code parameter well, the description enriches it with execution semantics: async behavior, return value via `return ...`, available globals, forbidden globals, and timeout syntax. This gives an agent concrete guidance far beyond the raw 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 states a specific action — execute JavaScript/TypeScript-like code in a stateful sandbox — and gives the exact return signature. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling documentation tools by including a discovery note that routes unfamiliar API questions to search_docs/read_doc.

  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 says to use search_docs/read_doc first for unfamiliar SDK methods and discourages running code before checking API conventions. It also lists sandbox constraints (no fetch/process/require/import) and timeout rules, which effectively tell the agent when not to use this tool or how to adapt usage.

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

• read_docA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: no-args lists one-line summaries, path fetch returns verbatim full doc, and platform only filters listings. It also explains determinism and the filesystem-as-API rationale, giving the agent useful mental model beyond annotations.

  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 core behavior and routing rule are front-loaded, followed by scannable bullet examples, and then a short rationale. Every sentence earns its place; the research reference is brief and helps explain why direct doc reading is preferable to repeated searching.

  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?

  Even without an output schema, the description covers all return modes: listing all chunks with summaries, listing by platform, and fetching one full doc verbatim. Required parameters, optional parameters, and parameter combinations are all addressed. No critical gap remains for an agent to choose and call this tool correctly.

  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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial value: concrete path examples, 'omit to list all available paths', platform filter scoped to listing mode, and expected return shape per parameter combination. These details are not in the schema and materially improve correct invocation.

  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 a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a specific SDK docs chunk by exact path' and also describes the no-args listing mode. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from search_docs, so an agent can select it correctly based on the tool's purpose alone.

  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 gives explicit routing guidance: 'Use this instead of search_docs when you already know the chunk ID.' It also provides common usage patterns and a recommendation to call read_doc({}) once at session start to map the SDK surface. This goes beyond vague context into actionable when-to-use instructions.

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