Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• add_providerC
  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 states 'Add a new AI provider' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether changes are persistent, error handling, or rate limits. The OpenAI-compatibility hint is useful but insufficient for full transparency.

  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 extremely concise with just two sentences that efficiently communicate the core purpose and key constraint. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text.

  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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after adding a provider, whether there's validation, error conditions, or how this integrates with the 'brainstorm' tool. The OpenAI-compatibility note helps but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral 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%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 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 ('Add a new AI provider') and the resource ('for brainstorming'), with a specific scope ('Supports any OpenAI-compatible API'). It distinguishes from 'list_providers' by being a creation tool, though the distinction from 'brainstorm' is less 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 is provided. The description mentions 'for brainstorming' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, when to add providers, or how it relates to 'brainstorm' and 'list_providers' tools.

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

• list_providersB
  3.3/5.0
  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 the tool lists providers and models, but doesn't disclose key traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero 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 purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or return values, which are crucial for an AI agent to use it correctly. The mention of 'brainstorming' adds some context but doesn't compensate for the lack of structured information.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it does mention the scope ('for brainstorming'), providing slight contextual value. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the lack of inputs.

  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 ('List') and resource ('all configured AI providers and their default models'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_provider' or 'brainstorm', which would require mentioning this is a read-only listing operation versus creation or usage tools.

  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 'brainstorming' context, suggesting when this tool might be relevant, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'add_provider' or 'brainstorm'. No exclusions or clear alternatives are stated, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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

• brainstormA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the multi-round debate process, model participation, and synthesis behavior, but doesn't mention important traits like execution time, potential costs, error conditions, or what happens when models disagree. It provides basic behavioral context but lacks operational details.

  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 perfectly front-loaded and concise - two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. Every sentence earns its place: the first explains the main operation, the second describes the process flow. No wasted words or redundant information.

  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 complex tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains the process flow well but doesn't describe the output format, error handling, or performance characteristics. The description is complete enough to understand what the tool does but not how it behaves operationally.

  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 all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

  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 with specific verbs ('run', 'debate', 'critique', 'refine', 'produce') and resources ('multi-round brainstorming debate', 'multiple AI models', 'final consolidated output'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (add_provider, list_providers) by focusing on execution rather than configuration.

  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 provides clear context on when to use this tool ('Just provide a topic and all configured models will automatically participate'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. It implies usage for brainstorming scenarios but lacks explicit exclusions.

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