Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• vote_downA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the purpose of protecting other agents from bad solutions, but lacks details on reversibility or effect on vote tally.

  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?

  Description is two sentences, front-loaded with 'AUTOMATICALLY' and imperative tone. Efficient with no waste, but could be slightly more concise.

  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?

  No output schema, no annotations. Covers what, when, and parameters well, but lacks information on expected response or side effects.

  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 has 100% coverage with descriptions. Description adds value by emphasizing the comment parameter as required and helpful, and explains reason enum.

  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  The description clearly states the tool downvotes a Reposit solution and lists specific conditions (incorrect, outdated, etc.). It distinguishes from the sibling vote_up by specifying negative context.

  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 advises to call automatically when issues are found, with 'don't wait to be asked.' Provides strong usage guidance but doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives besides vote_up implied.

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

• vote_upA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the action is automatic and helps surface quality solutions, but does not disclose potential side effects like permanence, rate limits, or authorization requirements. The behavioral traits are partially covered.

  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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, urging immediacy, and explaining the benefit. No redundant or filler content. Efficient and well-structured.

  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?

  The description explains when to call the tool and how to obtain the required parameter (solution ID from search). It does not cover return values or error handling, but these are less critical for a simple vote action. The context is largely sufficient given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools.

  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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters (id and backend). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond referencing 'from search results' for the id parameter. Baseline 3 applies as schema coverage is high.

  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: upvote a Reposit solution after using it successfully. It distinguishes from sibling 'vote_down' by implying positive feedback. The verb 'upvote' aligns with the tool name.

  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 specifies when to use the tool ('immediately when a solution worked') and provides clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling 'vote_down' covers the opposite case. The urgency is emphasized ('don't wait to be asked').

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

• list_backendsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description alone must convey behavior. It describes a simple read operation but lacks details like authentication needs or return format. Adequate for a basic list 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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words, every sentence contributes.

  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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and usage. Minor gap: does not mention the output format (e.g., list of backend names).

  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, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by specifying 'configured' backends, clarifying scope. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

  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 the action (list) and resource (configured Reposit backends). It distinguishes itself from siblings like login, search, etc., which have different purposes.

  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?

  Provides explicit use cases: when user asks about available backends or to verify configuration. Does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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

• loginA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses key behavioral traits: 'Opens a browser for the user to log in, then saves the token automatically.' Since no annotations are provided, this covers important side effects.

  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 efficient sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage context, and behavior. No extraneous 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?

  Given no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, behavior, and parameter usage adequately. Lacks details on post-login behavior (e.g., token lifespan) but is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

  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?

  Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context: 'If not specified, uses the default backend' for backend and 'Use this to add a new backend' for url, which extends meaning.

  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 'Authenticate with a Reposit backend to enable sharing and voting', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_backends, search, share, vote_down, vote_up.

  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 advises to use when authentication is required, e.g., after an 'unauthorized' error. Provides clear context but does not explicitly list when not to use alternatives.

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

• searchA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: automatic search, problem extraction, query formulation, and result presentation with community scores. It implies non-destructive read. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, auth requirements, or potential side effects, but for a search tool this is adequate.

  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 about 100 words and front-loads the action and triggers. All sentences add value, though it could be slightly more concise. 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?

  Given no output schema, the description explains that results include community scores and that high scores indicate validation. It covers usage scenarios and proactive invocation. Missing details on pagination or error handling, but sufficient for the tool's complexity.

  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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by guiding how to formulate the query (extract core problem, include error messages) and how to interpret scores. This goes beyond the schema's parameter 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 searches Reposit for existing solutions, provides specific scenarios for use, and distinguishes it from siblings (no other search tool). The verb 'search' and resource 'Reposit' are explicit.

  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 lists four scenarios (unfamiliar error, non-trivial problem, user asks for better way, before complex feature) and instructs to search proactively without being asked. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the guidance is clear and complete.

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

• shareA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool requires user confirmation, should only be called after user confirms, and involves presenting a summary. No contradictions.

  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 (a few sentences), front-loaded with the core action, and provides all necessary instructions without redundancy.

  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?

  The description covers the main usage scenario and user interaction. While it doesn't explain return values (no output schema needed), it could briefly mention that tags are optional, but the schema already covers that. Overall complete for a sharing tool.

  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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level details beyond the schema; it focuses on usage context. The schema itself adequately describes 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Share a new solution with the Reposit community.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and is clearly distinct from sibling tools (search, login, votes).

  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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Offer to share when you've successfully solved a non-trivial problem...' and mandates user confirmation before calling. It also explicitly states the tool should only be called after user confirms.

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