Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• cache_listB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output ordering but does not explain what constitutes 'recently cached', whether the list is global or scoped, or if there are any side effects (e.g., consuming cache entries). No safety or rate-limit information is provided.

  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 that conveys the core purpose with no extraneous words. Every token is meaningful.

  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 tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimally adequate. However, it could benefit from additional context such as whether the cache is global or per-user, or how 'recent' is defined, but the basic listing functionality is clear.

  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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'limit', and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema is sufficient.

  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 a clear verb 'List' and specifies the resource 'recently cached URLs' with ordering 'most recent first'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like cached_fetch (which likely fetches a specific URL) and cache_store (which stores).

  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 cached_fetch or cache_stats. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The user is left to infer from the name alone.

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

• cache_statsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description indicates a read-only operation (returning statistics) with no explicit destructive behavior. However, it lacks disclosure of potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it only partially meets that need.

  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 purpose ('Return cache statistics') and lists the specific outputs. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.

  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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly lists the three statistics returned. It could optionally mention that the tool is safe to call at any time, but this is not required for basic completeness.

  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 tool has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter-specific information. According to guidelines, baseline score is 4 when there are 0 parameters, as no compensation is needed.

  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 explicitly states the tool returns cache statistics including total entries, total hits, and last cached timestamp. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('cache statistics'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cache_list' (which likely returns key listings) and 'cache_store' (which stores items).

  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 its siblings ('cached_fetch', 'cache_list', 'cache_store'). The description only states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without explicit context or exclusions.

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

• cache_storeA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the storage action but does not mention what happens if the URL already exists (overwrite?), error cases, or authorization needs. This leaves significant ambiguity.

  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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and trigger, and the second lists the parameters. No unnecessary words.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides an adequate but minimal explanation. It identifies the tool's role in caching but omits details about idempotency, error handling, or response format, which would be helpful for a complete understanding.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is low (33%), but the description adds meaning by associating each parameter with its role: 'original url, prompt, and the output text returned by WebFetch.' This helps clarify the purpose of the url and prompt parameters beyond 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?

  The description clearly states the tool's action ('Store a WebFetch result in the cache'), the resource ('cache'), and the trigger condition ('after a CACHE_MISS'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like cached_fetch, cache_list, and cache_stats by specifying its role in the caching workflow.

  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 specifies when to use the tool (after a CACHE_MISS), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or offer alternatives (e.g., using cached_fetch for a subsequent lookup).

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

• cached_fetchA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Fully describes behavior: cache lookup, instant return on hit, cache miss string, and cross-session caching. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and meets it.

  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?

  Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value without redundancy. Fits the required structure.

  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?

  Complete for a simple lookup tool: explains input, output, and fallback workflow. No output schema needed as return values are textual and explained.

  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?

  Adds meaning beyond schema by explaining that url and prompt form a cache key and that prompt is an instruction for WebFetch. Schema coverage is 100%, but description enriches semantics.

  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 clearly states it looks up a URL+prompt pair in a local cache, returning cached output or a cache miss message. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cache_list, cache_stats, and cache_store.

  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?

  Describes when to use (check cache) and provides a workflow on cache miss (call WebFetch then cache_store). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare directly to siblings.

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