Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ssl_checkA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal what information is checked/returned (certificate attributes), which is useful. However, it lacks context on operational behavior such as timeouts, errors for invalid hosts, or network prerequisites. It also doesn't state that this is a read-only operation, though 'check' implies it.

  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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Check the SSL/TLS certificate of a host') and follows with a concise list of features. It has no redundant words or filler, making it highly efficient.

  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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it names the host and lists the certificate details that will be returned. It does not explain failure modes or edge cases, but these are less critical for a straightforward check tool. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to decide and invoke the tool correctly.

  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 already covers both parameters (host and port) with descriptions and a default for port. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no format constraints or relationship between host and port). Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 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 verb 'Check' with the resource 'SSL/TLS certificate of a host', and enumerates specific attributes (validity, issuer, expiry date, days until expiry, SANs, chain, cipher, protocol). This distinguishes it from sibling network tools like dns_lookup, ip_info, whois_lookup, and http_ping, which target different aspects.

  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?

  Usage context is implied by the tool's purpose—use it when you need certificate details—but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention of when not to use it. The description does not name sibling tools or offer exclusions, so it falls short of a clear guideline.

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

• dns_lookupA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions supported modes (resolve, reverse, propagation) and record types, which gives some operational context. However, it does not discuss safety (e.g., read-only nature), error behavior, or rate limits, so it only partially fills the gap.

  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 states the core action and record types, the second mentions supplementary capabilities. Every word earns its place; it is front-loaded and free of 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?

  The description is adequate for a read-only lookup tool with a simple schema. It explains the primary purpose and the alternative modes, giving enough context for an agent to select the tool. It does not describe the output shape, but 'resolve to DNS records' implies the return value sufficiently for most use cases.

  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 provides 100% coverage of all three parameters, including descriptions and enums. The tool description adds no substantive information beyond what the schema already contains (e.g., record types are listed in both). Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the semantics.

  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 a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('domain name to DNS records'), enumerating record types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ip_info, whois_lookup, and ssl_check, which serve 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?

  The description makes the tool's use-case obvious: use it for DNS resolution, reverse DNS, or propagation checking. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and uncluttered by unrelated functionality.

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

• http_pingA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool sends multiple requests and returns per-request latency and statistics (average, min, max, p95, success rate). It does not discuss error handling, side effects on the target, or what counts as a success, but the return behavior is well specified, which is sufficient for this non-destructive network diagnostic 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?

  The description is extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a compact list of outputs. Every word contributes value with no repetition 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?

  For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the statistical aggregates. It does not mention failure handling or edge cases, but given the simplicity and the sibling tool context, it provides enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

  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 the schema already documents all three parameters (url, count, timeout_ms) with descriptions. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it neither explains the parameters further nor clarifies their interplay. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 measure HTTP response time to a URL over multiple requests. It uses specific verbs ('measure') and a specific resource ('HTTP response time'), and the scope ('over multiple requests') distinguishes it from sibling tools such as dns_lookup or whois_lookup.

  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 for HTTP latency measurement but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions that would favor http_ping over dns_lookup, ssl_check, etc. The context is clear but it lacks explicit usage direction.

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

• whois_lookupA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read-only lookup and specifies the output fields, which is good. However, it does not mention potential edge cases like invalid domains, response formatting, or network behavior, preventing a perfect score.

  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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key output details. Every word earns its place, with no 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?

  For a simple one-parameter lookup tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the main return values. It could be enhanced with notes on error handling or response format, but overall it supplies the essential context an agent needs.

  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 already provides a complete description of the 'domain' parameter with an example (example.com), and the tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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's function: 'Look up WHOIS information for a domain' and enumerates the key data returned (registrar, creation date, expiry date, nameservers, domain status). This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_lookup, ip_info, ssl_check, and http_ping.

  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 context (when domain registration details are needed) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The agent must infer from sibling tool names and the description's content, so guidance is only implicit.

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

• ip_infoA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, and lists the output fields and IPv4/IPv6 support. This adequately communicates the tool's behavior for a simple lookup, though it does not mention error handling or rate limits.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and each word adds value. It lists specific output fields without extraneous 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?

  For a simple single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail: what data is returned, supported input types, and clear purpose. It misses nothing critical, though a note about output format could push it to a 5.

  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%, with the parameter 'ip' already described as 'IPv4 or IPv6 address to look up'. The description redundantly mentions IPv4/IPv6 support but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. 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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('geolocation and network information for an IP address'), and lists concrete data fields (country, city, ISP, ASN, coordinates). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on IP-based geolocation/network details rather than DNS, SSL, WHOIS, or HTTP checks.

  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 clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve geolocation and network information for an IP address. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous and sufficient for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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