Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_game_assetsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare safe and idempotent behavior (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds significant behavioral details beyond these annotations: concurrent search, normalization, license filtering, relevance ranking, de-duplication, source diversification, caching, and cursor pagination. There is 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the main action ('Search enabled remote and local game-asset sources concurrently') and follows with a list of processing steps. Every word earns its place. However, the sentence is somewhat dense; breaking it into two sentences could improve readability without losing 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?

  Given the complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the processing pipeline well but does not describe the structure of the returned results. Since there is no output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing what fields each asset result contains (e.g., id, name, source, url, license). The mention of cursor pagination helps, but details on the response envelope are missing.

  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 has 100% description coverage (all 10 parameters have descriptions). The tool description itself does not add any extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no additional semantic value for 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 clearly states it searches remote and local game-asset sources concurrently, which directly contrasts with sibling tools: get_game_asset (single asset retrieval), list_asset_sources (listing providers), and index_local_assets (local indexing). The verb 'Search' and resource 'game-asset sources' are specific and unambiguous.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite instructions. For example, it doesn't mention that the user should first use list_asset_sources to obtain provider IDs for the sources parameter, or that index_local_assets must be run beforehand to make local assets searchable.

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

• index_local_assetsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds concrete behavioral details: files are hashed, optional .asset.json metadata is read, symlinks are skipped, and index refresh is atomic. 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word adds value—no redundancy, no fluff.

  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?

  The description covers the core process but omits several details: no mention of return value (no output schema), no prerequisites (e.g., configured roots), no explanation of the 'rebuild' mode, and no indication of performance or idempotency. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 50% (only max_files has a description). The tool description does not add any meaning to the parameters—it doesn't explain the mode enum or clarify max_files beyond what the schema already provides. This leaves the agent without guidance on choosing mode or setting the cap.

  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: incrementally scan local asset roots, hash changed files, read metadata, and atomically refresh the search index. It uses specific verbs and resources, and is distinct from sibling tools like get_game_asset or search_game_assets.

  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 the tool is used for updating the local search index but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., rebuild vs. incremental, or when to use search_game_assets). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• list_asset_sourcesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (e.g., enablement state, local index state), which helps the agent anticipate output. It does not cover potential edge cases like pagination or consistency guarantees, but for a zero-parameter listing, these are minor gaps.

  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 action ('List') and enumerates the key output fields. Every word is informative; there is no redundancy or filler.

  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 simplicity (zero params, no output schema, strong annotations), the description covers the purpose and return values well. It could explicitly state that it returns all available sources, but the lack of filtering parameters strongly implies this. Overall, it is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

  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 has no parameters (100% schema coverage). The description does not need to add param info. By the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate. No additional meaning is provided beyond the schema, but none is required.

  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 uses the verb 'List' and specifies the exact fields returned (provider ids, supported asset kinds, enablement state, etc.), clearly differentiating from siblings like get_game_asset (single item retrieval) and search_game_assets (filtered search).

  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 retrieving asset source metadata, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context signals and sibling names provide implicit guidance, but direct usage context is absent.

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

• get_game_assetA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds value by revealing what fields the full record includes (files, license guidance, alternates, attribution text) beyond what the simple asset_id schema implies. This behavioral context about the richness of the return data is helpful and not redundant 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single sentence front-loading the purpose and result content. Every word earns its place – 'full normalized record', 'including files, license guidance, alternates, and attribution text' adds concrete value without fluff. Could not be shorter without losing meaning.

  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 1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is mostly complete. It doesn't explain what 'alternates' or 'attribution text' means in detail, but the agent can infer from context. It also doesn't mention pagination or error cases, but for a simple read-retrieval tool this is acceptable.

  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 already has 100% coverage with a well-described 'asset_id' parameter. The description adds context by stating the parameter is the assetId from search_game_assets, clarifying the origin domain and that it's not just any ID. The schema says it well, but the description reinforces the provenance.

  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 verb 'Read', specifies the resource 'full normalized record for an asset', and distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting it operates on results from search_game_assets. It lists what's included (files, license guidance, alternates, attribution text) and contrasts with search_game_assets which returns abbreviated results.

  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 explicitly states 'returned by search_game_assets', telling the agent to call this tool after using its sibling. It implies this is for retrieving full details of a specific asset rather than listing or searching, but doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or what use case would require a different tool. Some guidance is provided by the sibling list context.

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