Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_recipeA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description discloses an extensive set of behavioral traits: rescaling rules, handling of groups/variants/conversion templates, redirects, pages without recipe boxes, null fields, and licensing. This goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) and leaves little ambiguity about tool behavior.

  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 thorough but presented as a single dense paragraph without bullet points or section breaks, making it hard to scan. Each sentence carries information, but the lack of structure reduces conciseness and readability.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity, the description covers all expected output fields and edge cases, including scaling behavior, redirects, missing data, and attribution. It complements the output schema well, providing context for fields like 'factor', 'time_phases', and 'redirected_from'. This is a nearly complete specification for practical use.

  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 substantial meaning to 'id' (accepts plain dish names, namespace handling) and 'servings' (detailed rescaling rules) beyond the schema. However, 'max_description_chars' is not mentioned in the description nor described in the schema, leaving a gap for one of the three parameters.

  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 opens with 'Read one Wikibooks Cookbook page' and lists the specific content returned (ingredients, equipment, steps, etc.), making the tool's purpose explicit. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_recipes and list_recipes by focusing on reading a single page.

  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 gives clear usage context: 'id' is the page key from search_recipes or list_recipes, and passing 'servings' triggers rescaling. It also explains when rescaling fails (no yield). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance beyond this, so it falls short of a 5.

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

• list_recipesA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that results are 'a ranked sample and not the category itself,' not complete or ordered, and that reference pages may appear alongside recipes. These caveats are crucial for interpreting results and are not provided by the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

  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 longer than minimal but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the purpose, then explains limitations, then usage alternatives. The structure is logical and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly tightened without losing meaning.

  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?

  The description is complete for a browse tool: it covers what it does, how to filter, what the results are (and their limitations), how to handle non-recipe rows, and when to use sibling tools. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values. The complexity of open-world ranked results is well addressed.

  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 schema by stating 'Give at least one of the three' and 'giving several narrows the result,' clarifying the relationship between the filter parameters. It also implies that results are rows to be consumed via get_recipe. Schema coverage is 75%, so the description compensates for the undocumented 'limit' parameter by explaining the overall filtering behavior.

  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's purpose: 'Browse the Wikibooks Cookbook by cuisine, by kind of dish, or by main ingredient.' It uses a specific verb ('browse') and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly guiding users to search_recipes for dish names and get_recipe for opening rows.

  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?

  The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Give at least one of the three; giving several narrows the result.' It also specifies when to use alternatives: 'Use search_recipes instead when there is a dish name to look up' and 'Open a row with get_recipe before describing it as a recipe.' This is clear and actionable.

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

• search_recipesA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that total_available is null, no second page exists, and title searches may return pages under alternate names. This adds behavioral context not available from annotations alone.

  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?

  Although the description is dense, every sentence adds meaningful context. It opens with the core purpose, then elaborates on edge cases and result semantics with zero filler.

  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?

  With an output schema present, the description focuses on behavioral and contextual details: result row meaning, limitation of total_available, and the relationship with get_recipe. It covers edge cases like pages that only mention a dish, making it complete 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?

  The schema describes query and search with brief examples, but the description enriches the search parameter by explaining exactly how text vs title affects results and why title may miss differently named dishes. Limit gets no description, but the guidance to narrow the query implies its purpose.

  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 searches the Wikibooks Cookbook by dish name or ingredient, using specific search modes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that only get_recipe can confirm ingredient lists and every row's id feeds into get_recipe.

  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?

  The description explains when to use text vs title searches, warns that full-text rows may not exactly match, and explicitly advises narrowing the query rather than paginating. It also points to get_recipe for detail, providing clear alternative guidance.

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

• scale_ingredientsA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Discloses a wealth of behavioral traits beyond annotations: no website contact, rounding to scale readability, unit conversion to avoid rounding to zero, and handling of countable vs measurable items. Also covers bracketed equivalents, slash alternatives, OR branches, and flagging no-quantity lines. This far exceeds what the readOnly/idempotent annotations provide.

  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?

  Although detailed, the description is carefully structured: purpose, input options, rounding behavior, special cases, and a closing recommendation. Each sentence provides a distinct, actionable rule with no filler. Length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

  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?

  Covers base scaling, rounding, unit conversions, countable/uncountable logic, syntactic variations, and no-quantity handling. With an output schema available, it doesn't need to explain return values, yet it even previews the flag for no-quantity lines. Siblings are unrelated to scaling, so no cross-reference is needed.

  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 covers all four parameters, but description adds critical semantics: which parameter combination to use (factor vs from_servings/to_servings) and that the factor is computed from the servings pair. It also clarifies that ingredient lines need not come from a recipe database. This is a strong supplement to 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?

  Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Rescale a list of English ingredient lines.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling recipe search/list/get tools, and explicitly says to prefer this over doing arithmetic yourself. The purpose is unmistakable.

  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?

  States when to use the tool: works on a list from anywhere, including pasted input. Provides explicit input mode guidance ('Give either factor directly, or from_servings and to_servings') and names the alternative (doing arithmetic yourself). This is explicit when/when-not guidance.

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