Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• kagi_newsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions it returns headlines, source, time, and snippets. It does not disclose any behavioral traits like time range recency, default sorting, or any limitations. For a simple read-only tool this is minimal, but the description carries the full burden without 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?

  Two sentences, highly concise, front-loaded with purpose and return format. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

  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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return format, and usage context adequately. However, it lacks details about time range recency or default sort order, which would make it more 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% and already documents both parameters well. The description does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score.

  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 it searches recent news and returns headlines with source, publication time, and snippets. It also distinguishes from sibling kagi_search by specifying it is best for current events.

  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 says 'Best for current events; use kagi_search for general web results,' providing clear context for when to use this tool versus the sibling.

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

• kagi_lensesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds context that lenses are 'available on this account', implying account-specific data. However, it does not disclose details like whether the list is exhaustive or if any side effects occur, though for a list tool this is acceptable.

  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 wasted words. First sentence states the action, second sentence provides cross-tool usage guidance. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

  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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does and how to use its result. Could mention return format (e.g., list of lens objects) but not essential given simplicity.

  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?

  No parameters in schema, so baseline is 4 per rubric. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is appropriate since there are none.

  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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'Kagi lenses' with examples (Forums, Academic, Programming). It also mentions the output includes ids, distinguishing it from siblings like kagi_search and kagi_news.

  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 tells the agent to pass a lens name or id to kagi_search's lens parameter, creating a clear usage context. Lacks an explicit 'when not to use' but provides sufficient guidance for correct tool invocation.

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

• kagi_searchA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions the return format (titles, URLs, dates, snippets) and operator support, but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error behavior. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

  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 concise (two sentences) and well-structured, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or filler.

  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?

  Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return format and parameter usage. It mentions all key features, though it could include more details on edge cases or advanced usage.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of parameters (e.g., 'Use from_date/to_date to restrict by publication date') and the capabilities of the query (supports operators), which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

  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 tool's purpose: 'Search the web with Kagi (high-quality, ad-free results).' It specifies the return fields (titles, URLs, dates, snippets) and distinguishes itself from siblings like kagi_lenses and kagi_news by being a general web search tool.

  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 guidance on using parameters like from_date/to_date, page, region, and lens, and mentions query operators. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use kagi_news instead) or state when not to use this tool, missing some explicit context.

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