Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• render_echartA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that rendering happens server-side without a browser, returns raw SVG plus the echoed option, and that canvas/PNG raster rendering is not yet available (v1.1). This is valuable behavioral context, though it does not mention what happens when canvas/dual is requested or other edge cases like error handling.

  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 very concise: two sentences that efficiently state the action, output format, return value, and version limitation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

  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?

  Despite being brief, the description covers essential context: server-side rendering, SVG output, return payload, and the upcoming canvas/PNG support. Given the rich input schema and presence of an output schema, the description fills the main gaps. It misses explicit usage guidance relative to siblings and error handling for unsupported renderer modes, but is otherwise sufficiently complete for a complex 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?

  The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter details beyond mentioning the 'echoed option', which overlaps with the schema's description of the 'option' parameter. Thus, it does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding.

  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 defines the tool's purpose: 'Renders an Apache ECharts visualization to SVG' with the specific verb 'renders' and explicit output format. It also adds scope context ('server-side, no browser') and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on rendering rather than validation or listing.

  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 provides contextual usage ('server-side, no browser') and notes that canvas/PNG is not yet available, which implies when to use it (when SVG is needed). However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like validate_echart_option or list_chart_types, and lacks any exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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

• validate_echart_optionA
  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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states it is a dry-run (no rendering) and returns errors and warnings, which are meaningful behavioral traits. It does not detail edge cases or side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.

  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 long, front-loaded with the key action ('Dry-run structural and semantic validation') and includes the return value summary. Every word contributes to the user's understanding with no fluff.

  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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description effectively covers the tool's purpose, behavioral constraints, and return semantics. It could be more complete by listing example validation rules or the exact return shape, but it is largely sufficient for an AI agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

  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 fully describes the only parameter 'option' with a clear description, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds the version context (echarts@6.1.0) and validation scope (structural/semantic) but does not add additional parameter-level meaning 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 performs 'structural and semantic validation of an ECharts option against echarts@6.1.0 without rendering.' It uses a specific verb ('validates') and resource ('ECharts option'), and the 'without rendering' clause distinguishes it from the sibling render_echart tool.

  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 by noting 'without rendering' and 'dry-run', suggesting it is the safe pre-render check. However, it never explicitly mentions alternative tools or provides when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings render_echart and list_chart_types.

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

• list_chart_typesA
  4.5/5.0
  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 reveals a key trait: the list is not exhaustive and render_echart accepts any ECharts v6 option, which prevents misuse. It doesn't describe the return format, but for a simple list tool this is sufficient.

  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 main purpose, and every clause adds value. The second sentence prevents a common misconception about allowlisting. No redundancy.

  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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it does, how it relates to render_echart, and its non-exhaustive nature. Nothing is missing.

  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?

  There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description doesn't need to add parameter details. Baseline of 4 applies, and the description's mention of ECharts v6 context is a small bonus.

  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 ('Lists') and resource ('ECharts series types'), clearly stating the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that render_echart accepts any option, clarifying that this list is for discoverability only.

  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 when to use this tool (for agent discoverability) and explicitly contrasts with render_echart by stating this is not an allowlist. It doesn't mention validate_echart_option or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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