Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• invoke_toolA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With only openWorldHint annotation, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses two behaviors: argument validation against the tool schema and the need for confirmation_token on mutating tools. It does not mention side effects, return values, or error handling, which are relevant for an execution 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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds validation and token requirements. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

  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?

  The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential execution purpose and the token requirement, but does not explain the overall workflow with sibling tools (e.g., use search_tools/describe_tool to find a tool, confirm_action to get token) or what the tool returns. It is minimally complete but would benefit from workflow 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 description coverage is low (33%: only confirmation_token documented). The description adds context by stating 'Arguments are validated against the tool schema,' which explains the 'args' parameter's purpose, and 'by name' clarifies 'name.' It also explains the token's role, but does not detail the structure of 'args' or how to obtain valid tool names/confirmations beyond the schema's note to use confirm_action.

  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 specifies the tool's function: 'Run a domain tool by name.' It uses a specific verb ('run') and resource ('domain tool'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_tools and describe_tool, which are for discovery rather than execution.

  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?

  The description implies usage (execute domain tools) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives. It does provide a key conditional: 'Mutating tools additionally require confirmation_token,' which guides when confirmation is needed. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or references to sibling discovery/confirmation workflows.

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

• search_toolsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns (including 'whether the tool mutates state') and hints that the tool list is not exhaustive. It does not introduce contradictions or disclose additional behaviors beyond 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?

  Three concise sentences: purpose, output, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

  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?

  There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains return fields. It also provides usage context and alternatives. Minor omission: it does not mention the default limit or pagination, though these are available in the input schema.

  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 75%: query, domain, and mutating have descriptions, while limit does not. The description restates the keyword concept and return fields but does not add meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'domain' as a return field but not as a filter parameter, which could be slightly ambiguous.

  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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find domain tools by keyword.' It also lists the exact return fields (name, domain, one-line summary, state mutation) and distinguishes itself from siblings by saying 'Use this instead of expecting every tool to be listed up front.'

  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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this instead of expecting every tool to be listed up front.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools describe_tool, confirm_action, or invoke_tool, nor does it state when not to use it.

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

• confirm_actionA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description adds key behavioral details: single-use, time-limited, and bound to exact arguments. This goes beyond the minimal annotation coverage, though it does not detail mismatch behavior or side effects, which prevents a 5.

  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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and add the binding constraint without any filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it 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?

  For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the relationship to invoke_tool. It omits details like how to pass the token to invoke_tool or expiration specifics, but given the simple scope, it is largely complete.

  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?

  The input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining that the supplied arguments must exactly match a later invoke_tool call, reinforcing the binding semantics beyond the 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 clearly states the tool issues a single-use, time-limited confirmation token for a mutating tool, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like invoke_tool by focusing on the confirmation step, and it clarifies that the token is bound to exact arguments.

  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 implies the tool should be used before a mutating invoke_tool call, as the token must match that later call. It specifies the applicable case (mutating tools) but does not explicitly list when not to use it or reference alternative tools beyond the implied workflow.

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

• describe_toolA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by saying "Return." The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying the exact output content (full description and JSON Schema). No contradictory behavior is disclosed.

  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?

  A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and output. No filler or redundant information.

  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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully captures what is returned and how to obtain the tool name. The read-only annotation covers safety, and the context with siblings is clear.

  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?

  The schema already provides 100% coverage with an example. The description adds a useful hint that the name should come from search_tools, which gives meaning beyond the schema's bare definition.

  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: to return the full description and JSON Schema for one tool. The verb "Return" and resource "description and JSON Schema" are specific, and the mention of "discovered via search_tools" distinguishes it from siblings like search_tools and invoke_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 implies usage after search_tools by stating the tool is "discovered via search_tools." This gives context but does not explicitly exclude other alternatives or state when-not-to-use. It is clear enough given sibling names, but lacks the explicitness of a 5.

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