Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_zimC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it is read-only, performance implications, or any side effects. The description bears full burden but adds little beyond basic functionality.

  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?

  Two sentences, concise and front-loaded. No unnecessary words, but could benefit from slightly more structure.

  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?

  Mentions return format (JSON with titles and URLs) and search terms, but lacks details on error handling, default behavior for 'zim_file', or pagination. Adequate for a simple search 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 the schema already documents parameters adequately. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is in the schema.

  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?

  Clearly states it searches within a ZIM file and returns results with titles and URLs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_content' or 'list_all_zims'.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  Only says 'use keyword search terms' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_content' or 'list_all_zims'. No exclusions or context for selection.

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

• list_all_zimsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it returns JSON with details, but does not mention any potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error scenarios. For a read-only list, this minimal disclosure is slightly lacking.

  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 consists of two clear sentences with no superfluous information. It is front-loaded with the main action and scope, and every sentence contributes value.

  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 tool's simplicity (listing all ZIMs with details) and lack of output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it could mention typical fields returned or any limitations (e.g., no pagination, no filtering). For a basic list, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

  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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the high coverage yields a baseline of 4. No additional value is needed or missing.

  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 ('List') and resource ('ZIM files') and clearly states the scope ('currently loaded in your Kiwix instance'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_content or search_zim which operate on content within ZIMs.

  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 getting an overview of available ZIMs, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. There are no exclusions or context boundaries stated.

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

• get_contentA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that articles can be 'very long and token-intensive', which is a key behavioral trait. It also states output format ('plain text, no HTML'). Missing details about potential errors or exactness of title matching, but overall informative.

  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 sentences, each earning its place: first sentence states purpose and output format, second provides usage guidance and sibling reference, third warns about length. No redundant information. Well front-loaded.

  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, no output schema, and simple parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, and a behavioral warning. It could mention if the tool returns an error for missing titles, but completeness is adequate for the complexity level.

  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% (both parameters have descriptions). Description adds value: for 'title' it notes 'spaces are automatically converted', and for 'zim_file' provides an example format. These extras help beyond the schema definitions.

  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 'Retrieve the complete text content of an article from a ZIM file'. It specifies returns 'plain text (no HTML)' and distinguishes from sibling 'get_content_summary'. The verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'complete text content of an article from a ZIM file' are specific.

  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?

  Explicitly tells when to use ('need full article details') and when not ('for quick overviews, use 'get_content_summary' instead'). Also includes a warning about token intensity, guiding agents on resource implications.

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

• get_content_summaryA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, but description discloses return format (plain text, no HTML) and scope (opening section only). Implies read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state no 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?

  Two sentences, no wasted words. Action verb 'Get' at start. Information well-structured and efficient.

  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?

  Complete for a simple tool without output schema. Covers purpose, usage, parameter details, and differentiation from sibling tools.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%. Description adds valuable guidance: for 'paragraphs' suggests 1-2 vs 3-5 range, for 'title' notes underscore conversion, for 'zim_file' explains default vs override.

  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 'Get the first few paragraphs of an article's introduction section' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_content' which returns the full article.

  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?

  Explicitly advises 'Use this for quick topic overviews instead of 'get_content' which returns the full article', providing clear when-to-use and alternative.

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