Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• smart_commandC
  2.6/5.0
  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 automatic detection and actions (fetching links, searching queries), but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes a 'link' or 'search query'. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

  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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be more structured by explicitly separating the link and query cases or adding brief examples to enhance clarity without sacrificing brevity.

  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 tool that handles multiple actions (fetching and searching) and lacks annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how the detection logic works, leaving the AI agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively compared to its more specific siblings.

  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 'command' documented as a 'free-form user instruction'. The description adds marginal value by reiterating the auto-fetch and auto-search behavior, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states, such as examples or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool's purpose as a 'free-form command' that automatically fetches links or searches queries, which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('fetch', 'search') and resource types ('link', 'query'), but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'fetch_webpage' or 'google_search', leaving ambiguity about when to use this versus those specific tools.

  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 minimal guidance by stating it triggers based on detecting links or search queries, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., 'fetch_webpage' for links, 'google_search' for queries). There are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or context for usage, offering little help for an AI agent in tool selection.

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

• download_fileC
  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 mentions downloading a file but fails to address critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, file size constraints, or network behavior. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operational traits.

  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 function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to understand at a glance while avoiding redundancy or fluff.

  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 download operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, security considerations, and performance implications, which are crucial for effective tool invocation in an AI agent 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('url' and 'destinationFolder'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it only reiterates the purpose without providing additional syntax, format details, or constraints. 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.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Download a file') and the target resource ('from a given URL to a specified folder'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_api' or 'fetch_webpage', which might have overlapping functionality, 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 such as 'fetch_api' or 'fetch_webpage'. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, offering only a basic functional statement without comparative or situational advice.

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

• fetch_apiC
  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 mentions making requests with 'various methods, headers, and body' but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, response format, or side effects. For a general-purpose API tool with 7 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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 functionality. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff, 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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or practical constraints like authentication. For a versatile API tool, more context is needed to use it effectively beyond the parameter definitions.

  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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'various methods, headers, and body' which are covered in the schema's enum and descriptions. No additional parameter semantics are provided, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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's purpose as making REST API requests with various methods, headers, and body. It specifies the verb ('Make a REST API request') and resource ('API endpoint'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fetch_webpage or download_file, which might have overlapping functionality for HTTP requests.

  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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like fetch_webpage or download_file, nor does it specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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

• fetch_webpageC
  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 but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this makes network requests, has rate limits, requires authentication for certain sites, handles errors, returns structured data, or supports pagination beyond what's implied in parameters. The description is minimal compared to the tool's complexity.

  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. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

  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 complex tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'text content' means (HTML, plain text, structured data?), doesn't mention error handling, doesn't describe return format, and provides no context about the tool's capabilities beyond the minimal purpose statement.

  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 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose as 'Retrieve text content from a web page' with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('text content from a web page'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'download_file' (which likely downloads files) and 'fetch_api' (which likely calls APIs), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'google_search' or 'smart_command'.

  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 'fetch_api' or 'google_search'. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases beyond the basic purpose statement.

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

• google_searchC
  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 mentions the API dependency but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify rate limits, authentication needs beyond the config resource, error handling, or the format/scope of search results. For a web search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds necessary context about the config requirement. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating prerequisites from usage notes).

  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 complexity (web search with API integration), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses key contextual details: what the search results look like (format, fields), limitations (e.g., commercial vs. academic use), error cases, or how it differs from sibling tools. The config requirement is noted, but overall coverage is insufficient for effective agent 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 input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'query' operators work in practice or typical use cases for 'start'). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added over the schema.

  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's purpose: 'Search the web using Google Custom Search API.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('the web'), and mentions the specific API used. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'fetch_webpage' or 'smart_command' that might also retrieve web content.

  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 minimal usage guidance: it mentions a prerequisite ('Requires google_search_config resource.') but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch_webpage' or 'smart_command'. There's no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred or when it should be avoided.

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