Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• agy_researchB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as whether the tool is read-only, expected response time, or what 'research deeply' entails. The agent is left guessing about side effects or constraints.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is only one sentence, which is concise but sacrifices clarity. It does not fully explain what the tool does or how to use it effectively. Could be more structured.

  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?

  Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. No information about return values, depth of research, or usage 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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single parameter 'query'. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 performs research on a topic, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'agy_ask'. The phrase 'deeply' hints at more thorough analysis, but the distinction is implicit.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus 'agy_ask'. The description implies usage for deep research, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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

• agy_askA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool calls Gemini via Antigravity and that it is a one-shot request. However, it does not detail potential side effects (likely none), error behavior, timeout handling, or authentication requirements, which would be helpful for full 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 two sentences: the first clearly defines the action, the second provides context for usage. Every word is purposeful, and there is no redundant information.

  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 there is no output schema, the description fails to specify the structure or format of the response. However, for a CLI-like tool, the response is likely plain text. The description covers purpose, usage, and all parameters via schema, so it is mostly complete. Minor gap regarding return value details.

  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%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond general usage context. It does not explain parameter interrelationships or provide examples. 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?

  The description clearly states the tool sends a one-shot prompt to agy and returns the response. It distinguishes from the sibling 'agy_research' by specifying use cases: 'focused coding, debugging, or reasoning task', implying agy_research is for broader research.

  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 indicates when to use: for focused coding/debugging/reasoning tasks. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the sibling name 'agy_research' provides context, and the 'one-shot' phrasing implies it's not for multi-turn interactions.

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