Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• open_by_keyC
  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 states the action ('Open') but doesn't clarify what 'Open' means operationally (e.g., returns content, navigates, requires permissions) or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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 function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns documentation content. It lacks details on behavior, output format, error handling, or dependencies, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'key' documented as 'Document key' and a minLength constraint. The description adds minimal value by reinforcing 'official KEY' but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or where to find keys, so it 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 ('Open') and resource ('documentation page') with the specific mechanism ('by its official KEY'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'open_class' or 'search_objectscript', 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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'open_class' or 'search_objectscript'. The description implies usage when you have a known document key, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual alternatives.

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

• open_classC
  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 full burden. It states the action ('Abre') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what 'Documatic' refers to (e.g., a documentation system), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or what happens if the class doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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 zero waste, front-loaded with the core action and including a helpful example. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Documatic' is, what the tool returns (e.g., documentation content, a link, or an error), or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with minimal structured data, this lacks necessary context.

  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 the parameter 'class' documented as 'Class name' and a minLength constraint. The description adds an example ('ej. %Library.String') which provides context on format, but doesn't add substantial meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 verb ('Abre' = Open) and resource ('Documatic por nombre de clase'), specifying it opens documentation for a class by name. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on class names rather than keys or searches, though the distinction could be more explicit.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'open_by_key', 'search_objectscript', or 'smart_search'. The description implies usage for opening documentation by class name, but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to siblings.

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

• search_objectscriptC
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the cache limitation ('solo en caché local'), which is useful context about scope and data freshness. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), what format results return, whether there are rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

  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 appropriately concise with a single sentence that states the core purpose upfront. The parenthetical note about local cache adds important context without unnecessary elaboration. However, the Spanish phrase '(solo en caché local)' mixed with English might create minor clarity issues in some contexts, preventing a perfect score.

  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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter with good schema coverage, the description should provide more complete context. While it mentions the cache limitation, it doesn't explain what 'ObjectScript documentation and examples' encompasses, what format results return, or how this differs from sibling tools. For a search tool that presumably returns structured results, the lack of output information is a significant gap.

  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 the single parameter 'q' documented as 'Search query' with a minimum length constraint. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description, which applies here.

  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 tool's purpose as searching for ObjectScript documentation and examples, using the specific verb 'search' with the resource 'ObjectScript documentation and examples'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'open_by_key' and 'open_class' by focusing on search functionality rather than direct access. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'smart_search', which might be a more advanced search alternative.

  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 minimal guidance with the parenthetical note '(solo en caché local)', which suggests the search is limited to local cache only. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'smart_search', nor does it provide context about when this search approach is appropriate versus direct access tools. No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative recommendations are included.

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

• smart_searchC
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the cache-first then download approach, but doesn't describe what happens when documents are downloaded (where they go, format, permissions needed), rate limits, error conditions, or what 'smart' entails beyond the two-phase process.

  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 a single, efficient Spanish sentence that clearly states the core functionality. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the two phases more explicitly.

  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?

  For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'result', what format results come in, whether there's pagination, how many results are returned, or what happens when downloads fail. The two-phase approach is mentioned but not elaborated.

  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 both parameters well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it implies 'keys' parameter is used for downloading when cache misses, but doesn't provide additional context about key formats or relationships between query and keys.

  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 tool performs 'smart search' with a two-phase approach: first in local cache, then downloading documents if needed. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'documents', but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_objectscript' or 'open_by_key' which might have overlapping functionality.

  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 'search_objectscript' or 'open_by_key'. It mentions the two-phase approach but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferable over direct download or cache-only searches.

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