Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_documentationC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('List'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the agent has insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

  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 clear descriptions for both parameters (category and include_stats). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the impact of include_stats or the categories. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'List available documentation' states the basic action (list) and resource (documentation), but it's vague about scope and format. It doesn't specify what 'available documentation' means or how it differs from sibling tools like crawl_documentation and generate_cheatsheet, which could involve similar documentation resources.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where list_documentation is preferred over crawl_documentation or generate_cheatsheet, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

• crawl_documentationC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'crawl and download' which implies network operations and data retrieval, but fails to disclose critical traits like authentication needs, rate limits (though hinted in schema), potential destructive effects (e.g., overwriting files), or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with complex behavior.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, network operations, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'crawl' entails (e.g., recursive linking, HTML parsing), what 'download' produces (e.g., files, database entries), or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with inadequate context for safe and effective use.

  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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'max_depth' relates to documentation structure or what 'include_patterns' typically look like). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 clearly states the action ('crawl and download') and resource ('documentation from a website'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_documentation' or 'generate_cheatsheet', which prevents a perfect score.

  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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_documentation' or 'generate_cheatsheet'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or explicit alternatives, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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

• generate_cheatsheetC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Generate a cheat sheet' which implies a creation/processing action, but it doesn't disclose key traits like whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with existing cheatsheets (e.g., caching behavior hinted by 'force_regenerate' in schema). The description is too vague to inform the agent adequately.

  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, efficient sentence ('Generate a cheat sheet from documentation') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly states the purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like mutability or side effects, provide usage context relative to siblings, or explain output expectations (e.g., format or content of the cheat sheet). For a tool with multiple parameters and no structured output information, the description should do more to guide the agent.

  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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'url' for documentation URL, 'sections' for specific sections). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact (e.g., 'use_local' with 'url') or typical use cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

  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 clearly states the action ('Generate a cheat sheet') and the source ('from documentation'), which is specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'crawl_documentation' or 'list_documentation', which likely have different purposes (e.g., crawling vs. listing vs. generating summaries).

  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 like the sibling tools. It lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., needing accessible documentation), exclusions (e.g., not for raw data extraction), or comparisons to other tools, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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