Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• find_audioB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already communicate that this is read-only, idempotent, and open-world, so the safe search behavior is clear. The description adds useful context about the content types and source, but it does not disclose result shape, pagination, or license handling beyond what the schema and annotations already 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?

  The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the resource and scope of the search.

  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 tool's domain and purpose are clear, and the required query parameter lowers invocation risk. However, there is no explanation of what the response contains, what format results take, or what the intent parameter means, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no guidance for query, count, intent, or license. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names and defaults alone, which is a significant gap for a 4-parameter search tool.

  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 is specific and actionable: it says the tool searches CC music, sound effects, and field recordings from Openverse's audio index. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling find_images tool and other non-search 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 makes it clear that this is the audio search tool, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when an alternative like find_images would be preferable; that exclusion is only implied by the sibling names.

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

• find_imagesA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds an important behavioral detail not present in the annotations: every result carries a ready-to-paste attribution. This helps the agent know the output format and fit for attribution-related workflows beyond what the structured annotations disclose.

  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 sentence that states the core functionality and a key output characteristic without repetition or fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes useful source context in parentheses...

  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 7 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description carries a heavy burden and leaves too many open questions. It does cover the basic licensing and attribution aspects but not the meaning/ge of the optional parameters, expected return shape, or any pagination/limit behavior. This is barely adequate guidance for a low-stakes read-only tool but well short of what is needed for nuanced parameterized searches.

  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?

  None of the seven parameters are documented, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only hints at 'query' via 'Search' and at the 'license' field via 'CC-licensed', while the many other parameters (size, count, intent, extension, aspect_ratio) receive no explanation. Care must be given to the defaults and beyond, without which the agent can only guess at intent.

  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 action ('Search'), the resource ('CC-licensed images'), and adds source examples (Flickr, Wikimedia, museums) plus an output feature (ready-to-paste attribution). This lets an agent distinguish the tool from siblings like find_audio and image_roulette without needing to open the schema.

  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 appropriate when looking for openly-licensed images with usable attribution, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as image_roulette or find_audio. There is no mention of exclusions, edge cases, or situations where another tool would be preferable, so the guidance remains implicit rather than actionable.

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

• image_rouletteA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds non-obvious behavioral signals beyond annotations: the tool returns a single result, the selection is random/non-deterministic, and it is 'honest about how it was chosen.' This complements the readOnlyHint and aligns with idempotentHint=false; no contradiction is present.

  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?

  One deliberately hand-crafted sentence fits the whole essence of the tool: randomness, scope, licensing, and the "one" pick. There is no filler, and the key behavioral distinction is 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 simple read-only tool the description is relatively complete, but it lacks an output schema and does not describe what shape the result takes (URL, metadata, etc.). The seed parameter remains a mystery, so a fully correct call from a cold start is still uncertain.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description needs to carry the burden of explaining all parameters. It loosely maps 'matching a topic' to query and 'openly-licensed' to license, but it never explains the seed parameter, allowed license values, or the relationship between seed and randomness.

  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 identifies a distinct operation: returning a single random, openly-licensed image matching a topic. 'One pick' and 'random' distinguish it from the adjacent find_images tool, so there is little ambiguity about what this tool does.

  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 use case is implied by 'serendipity' and 'one pick' — use when you want a chance discovery rather than a broad search. However, it does not explicitly name when to use this vs. find_images or give any exclusions/preconditions, so the agent must infer this distinction.

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

• skill_readA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so this is clearly a safe, non-mutating read operation. The description adds only 'full content' and 'by name', which does not meaningfully expand beyond the annotations or the basic nature of the tool, but it does not contradict them.

  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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the source context 'from skills_list' used efficiently. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.

  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 one-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains what value is returned ('full content') and the source of the name, though it does not explicitly describe error behavior for unknown skill names or the exact content format. Given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, this is a minor 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?

  The schema provides only a string parameter named 'name' with 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. The phrase 'by name' and '(from skills_list)' clarify that the parameter is a skill name sourced from skills_list, but the description does not specify format, case sensitivity, or how the name should be validated.

  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 states a specific verb-resource relationship: fetch the full content of one skill by name. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling skills_list by emphasizing 'full content' and 'one skill', making its role clear.

  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 phrase 'from skills_list' provides clear context that the skill name comes from the list returned by skills_list, implying skills_list should be used together. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for other scenarios, but the context is sufficient for a simple read operation.

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

• skills_listA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, signaling a safe operation. Description adds that returned items are readable via skill_read, but does not disclose deeper behavior such as input format or pagination on a simple zero-parameter tools.

  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 one efficient sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action, defines the resource, and closes with a useful pointer to skill_read.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter list tool, the description is complete: it says what is listed, why it matters, and how to continue with skill_read. Annotations cover safety, and no output schema is needed for this simple listing.

  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?

  Tool receives no parameters, so semantic explanation is unnecessary. The schema description coverage is 100%, and this zero-parameter context gives the tool the baseline 4.

  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?

  Description states 'List available skills' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies skills are 'guidance playbooks' for using the server. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like find_images and skill_read.

  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?

  Description gives the clear context: use it to see what guidance is available before reading a skill. It points to skill_read as the follow-up action, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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