Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ingest_docB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  In the absence of annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pipeline (chunk, embed, upsert) and idempotency. However, it omits potential side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or error conditions, which are relevant for an ingestion 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 a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds value: the process, the input alternatives, and the idempotency guarantee. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

  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 tool with 4 optional params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core process and idempotency but lacks details on return values, error handling, size limits, or post-ingestion state changes. It is adequate but not complete for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.

  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?

  With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that url and text are alternatives ('Provide either a URL ... or raw text'), which is not explicit in the schema. It does not elaborate on source or title beyond their schema descriptions.

  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 ('Chunk → embed → upsert') and the resource ('document into pgvector'). It mentions two content sources (URL or raw text). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the purpose is specific and distinct from the retrieval tools.

  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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (answer_question, search_docs). There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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

• answer_questionA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key behavior: refusal when retrieval confidence is low. However, it does not mention other potential behaviors like rate limits or permission requirements.

  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?

  The description is concise, using one sentence to convey the core functionality and a key behavior. It is front-loaded but could be better structured with separate sentences for different aspects.

  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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects: retrieval, synthesis, citations, and refusal. It lacks details on the output format or citation style, but it is reasonably complete.

  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 fully describes the single required parameter 'question' (type, minLength, description). The description does not add additional semantic meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

  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 specifies the action ('answers'), the resource ('question with citations'), and how it works ('retrieves relevant chunks, synthesizes a grounded answer with citations'). It also alludes to a behavior that distinguishes it from siblings like ingest_doc and search_docs.

  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 answering questions from a corpus, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (search_docs for searching, ingest_doc for ingestion). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

• search_docsA
  4/5.0
  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 semantic search nature, output composition (chunks, scores, metadata), and search scope. However, it omits details like potential rate limits, authentication, or read-only nature, but is still fairly transparent for a search 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?

  A single sentence that front-loads the core action ('Semantic search') and includes key output information. No wasted words, 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?

  For a simple 2-parameter tool, the description adequately covers purpose, output, and scope. However, it doesn't specify the default value for k ('from config' is vague) and lacks detail on 'source metadata,' leaving minor gaps.

  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% (both query and k have descriptions). The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what's in the schema; it merely restates the operation. 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 performs 'semantic search' over a specific corpus ('financial-docs') and returns 'top-k chunks with cosine similarity scores and source metadata,' distinguishing it from siblings like answer_question (likely answering) and ingest_doc (adding documents).

  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 retrieval but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools. No alternatives mentioned, so it's adequate but not explicit.

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