Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_ascii_artA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It reliably conveys a read/search operation and that the art text is returned, but it does not disclose behavior for edge cases such as no match, multiple matches, or case sensitivity. The core behavior is communicated, but not deeply.

  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 uses an active verb and provides both search scope and result. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

  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 tool with one parameter, no nested objects, and a clear text return, the description is largely complete. It states both what is being searched and what is returned. It could mention empty/error behavior, but the simplicity of the tool limits the need.

  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 schema only describes 'query' as a string with minLength 1; it gives no semantic meaning. The description compensates by explaining that the query is matched against 'nombre or aliases', which effectively defines the parameter's purpose. It could add more nuance about matching, but it is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

  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 'search', the resource 'ASCII/Unicode art entry', and the lookup criteria 'by nombre or aliases'. This makes it distinct from random_ascii and list_categories, though the overlap with sibling search_ascii is not fully clarified.

  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?

  There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description implies it is for finding an entry by known name/alias, but it does not mention exclusions or direct the agent to search_ascii for broader text search.

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

• random_asciiA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states what it returns, not any side effects (though likely read-only), determinism, or failure modes. It doesn't mention if the result could be empty, or whether the filter restricts the random pool. Minimal behavioral insight beyond the immediate action.

  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. It packs the core information (random + optional filter) without wasted words. Perfectly sized for a simple tool.

  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 low complexity (1 optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what it returns and how to filter. However, it lacks context on when to use this vs siblings, and does not indicate if the selection is truly uniform or if there are any edge cases (e.g., empty category). For a straightforward read-only tool, it's adequate but not thorough.

  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 defines 'tipo' as an enum (ascii/unicode), so baseline is 3 due to schema coverage. The description adds the meaning that it acts as a filter ('optionally filtered by tipo'), which is useful. However, it doesn't elaborate beyond that—no format details or examples, so it neither fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage nor adds substantial extra meaning.

  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 (return a random art entry) and identifies the resource (ASCII/Unicode art) with an optional filter. It inherently distinguishes from siblings like get_ascii_art (specific retrieval) and search_ascii (filtered search) by emphasizing randomness. The verb 'Return' is explicit and the scope is well-defined.

  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 obtaining a random art entry, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of when to prefer this over search_ascii or get_ascii_art. It provides a clear context (random selection) but no exclusions or contrast with sibling tools.

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

• list_categoriesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, and the description does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe. While 'list' implies no side effects, the absence of any safety or side-effect disclosure leaves some 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 a single, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.

  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 simple listing operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does. It is complete for the tool's scope, and no additional information appears necessary.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter details to convey. The description does not need to add anything beyond the schema, and nothing is missing.

  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 lists all unique categories from the database, leaving no ambiguity about its function. The verb 'list' and the object 'all unique categories' provide clear intent.

  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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ascii_art or search_ascii. It lacks explicit context for choosing this tool over others, though the purpose alone might imply use when category listing is needed.

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

• search_asciiA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states the action ('search') and outcome ('return matching art texts'), which implies a read-only operation. It does not explicitly mention side effects, but the nature of search suggests no state changes, so it is reasonably transparent.

  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 with no superfluous information. It directly communicates the tool's purpose without 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 simple context and the existence of sibling tools, the description adequately covers the essential information. It does not explain return format or edge cases, but the lack of an output schema makes that less critical. Overall, it provides enough context for a basic understanding.

  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 provides no descriptions, but the description mentions 'categoria or tags', giving some meaning to the parameters. However, it does not clarify whether both are optional, how they combine, or acceptable formats, so it adds partial value 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 that the tool searches entries by categoria or tags and returns matching art texts. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('entries'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like get_ascii_art, random_ascii, and list_categories.

  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 searching, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or explain when this tool should be preferred over others. It lacks guidance on context, such as whether to use it when looking for specific art texts.

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