Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• multiplyC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic operation. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as mutability, side effects, error handling, or return format. With empty annotations, the description should cover these but does not.

  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 extremely short (three words), which is concise but at the expense of necessary information. While it avoids wordiness, it lacks substance that would aid an agent. A balanced approach would include more context without becoming verbose.

  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?

  For a simple tool with two integer parameters and an output schema, the minimal description covers the basic purpose. However, it omits usage guidance, parameter details, and output description, leaving the agent with limited information for effective invocation.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to parameters 'a' and 'b' beyond their types. There is no hint about numeric range, order, or semantics. The description merely restates what the schema already shows.

  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 'Multiply two integers' clearly states the verb (multiply) and resource (two integers), distinguishing it from sibling arithmetic tools like add, subtract, and divide. The purpose is immediately obvious.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add, subtract, divide). It does not specify any prerequisites or contextual conditions.

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

• divideB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavior such as division by zero handling, rounding, or output format.

  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?

  Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but would benefit from additional context about edge cases.

  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?

  For a simple arithmetic tool, description covers basic purpose but omits critical edge case (division by zero) despite low complexity.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0% and description only restates parameter types from schema ('first integer', 'second integer') without adding constraints, order, or potential issues like zero divisor.

  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 verb 'Divide' and resource 'first integer by the second', distinguishing it from sibling tools like add, multiply, subtract, and reverse_string.

  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?

  No guidance on when to use division vs alternatives, nor any mention of division by zero or other constraints.

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

• addB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only calculation but does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or output format. Adequate given simplicity.

  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?

  Extremely concise with only three words. Every word earns its place; 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?

  Given the simple arithmetic operation and existence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It lacks mention of edge cases but is sufficient for a basic 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 coverage is 0%, but the description's 'two integers' covers both parameters implicitly. However, it adds no detail about constraints or order beyond 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?

  The description 'Add two integers' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling arithmetic tools. It is specific but lacks the scope detail seen in top-tier examples.

  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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like multiply or subtract. The description does not provide any context for selection.

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

• reverse_stringA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Reverse a given string' with no mention of side effects, edge cases, or safety. A simple transformation with no apparent side effects, but still minimal.

  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 with no extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

  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 tool with one parameter and an output schema (assumed present), the description is mostly complete. It does not mention return type or error cases, but these may be covered by the output schema.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0% (no description in schema). The description adds that the 'text' parameter is the string to reverse, but does not add more semantic detail (e.g., encoding, max length).

  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 'Reverse a given string' clearly specifies the action (reverse) on a resource (string). It distinguishes itself from sibling arithmetic tools like add, subtract, etc.

  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 tool's purpose is straightforward and distinct from siblings (arithmetic operations). No explicit when-not-to-use is needed, but the description provides no usage context.

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

• subtractA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic operation. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as overflow behavior, order sensitivity (though implied), or any side effects. The output schema exists but is not described.

  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 is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every word is meaningful and 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?

  For a simple tool with two integer parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate. It explains the core operation, though it could mention the return type or potential edge cases. The existence of the output schema reduces the burden.

  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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by clarifying that 'a' is the first integer and 'b' is the second, and the operation is subtraction. The schema has 0% coverage, so this context is valuable.

  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 operation: subtract the second integer from the first. The verb 'subtract' is specific to the resource 'integers', and it distinguishes from siblings like add, divide, multiply, and reverse_string.

  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 integer subtraction but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like add or multiply. No when-not 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.