Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• summarize_urlC
  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 full burden but only states basic functionality. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, content type handling, error conditions, or summary length/format. This is inadequate for a tool that fetches external content.

  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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on summarization behavior (e.g., length, style), error handling, or output format, which are critical for an AI agent to use this tool effectively.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate but only mentions 'url' generically. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's basic type/format, such as URL validation rules, supported protocols, or content restrictions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema defines the parameter minimally.

  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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('fetches content', 'generates a concise summary') and identifies the resource (URL content). It distinguishes from 'fetch_url' by adding the summarization aspect, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'search_web' or 'wiki_get'.

  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 alternatives like 'fetch_url' (which might fetch without summarizing) or 'search_web' (which might search multiple sources). The description implies usage for URL summarization but lacks 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.

• wiki_getB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a summary and supports multiple languages, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes a 'summary' (e.g., length, format). This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 front-loads the core purpose and includes essential details (language support and default). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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, no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and output details, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'title' is for the Wikipedia article and 'lang' specifies language with a default of 'en', which clarifies beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail parameter constraints (e.g., valid language codes) or usage nuances, leaving some gaps.

  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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('Wikipedia summary'), and identifies the key input ('given title'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wiki_multi', but the purpose is unambiguous.

  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 Wikipedia summaries and mentions language support, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wiki_multi' or 'search_web'. The context is clear but lacks comparative or exclusionary advice.

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

• wiki_multiB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'langlinks to map titles accurately' which adds useful context about title resolution behavior, but doesn't describe error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or what happens when languages aren't available. For a 3-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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?

  Two concise sentences with zero waste. First sentence states core functionality, second adds important implementation detail about title mapping. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately front-loaded with the main purpose.

  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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the return format (what 'summaries' look like), error conditions, parameter interactions, or practical usage examples. The langlinks mention is helpful but doesn't compensate for the overall lack of operational context.

  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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'term' and implies language parameters through 'multiple languages' and 'langlinks', but doesn't explain what 'baseLang' and 'langs' represent, their format (language codes), or how they interact. It adds minimal semantic value beyond what can be inferred from parameter names.

  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 specific action ('Retrieves Wikipedia summaries') and resource ('for a given term'), with explicit scope ('in multiple languages'). It distinguishes from sibling 'wiki_get' by specifying multi-language capability and mentioning 'langlinks' for cross-language title mapping.

  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 context through 'multi-language' and 'langlinks' terminology, suggesting this is for cross-lingual Wikipedia lookups. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'wiki_get' or 'search_web', nor does it provide exclusion criteria or comparative guidance.

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

• search_webA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: the two-tier architecture, default behavior (fast first), escalation conditions, and that 'No API keys required' (important authentication context). It doesn't mention rate limits or error handling, keeping it from a perfect score.

  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 efficient - just two sentences that pack essential information about the tool's architecture, default behavior, escalation logic, and authentication requirements. Every word earns its place with no wasted text.

  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 4-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the behavioral architecture well but leaves significant gaps: no explanation of what the search returns, no parameter semantics, and no error handling information. It's adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for full operational 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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't explain any of the 4 parameters beyond what's implied by 'mode' (fast/deep/auto). It doesn't clarify what 'q', 'limit', or 'lang' represent, though the schema provides constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural information.

  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 performs 'Two-tier web search' with specific implementations (DuckDuckGo and Puppeteer/Bing), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch_url (single URL retrieval) or wiki_get (Wikipedia-specific). It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'web' with implementation details.

  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 about when to use different modes (fast vs deep) and the default escalation behavior, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch_url or wiki_get. It mentions 'if results are insufficient' as a trigger for escalation, giving practical guidance.

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

• fetch_urlA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it describes truncation modes with character limits, default settings (standard mode, markdown format), and output formats. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific features in a structured list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of the tool's behavior and parameters. It could be more complete by addressing error cases or response structure, but it adequately supports the 4-parameter input schema and distinguishes from siblings.

  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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the semantics of 'mode' (truncation options with character estimates) and 'format' (output formats with default). It does not cover 'max_length' or 'url' beyond what the schema implies, but adds meaningful context for two 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 the specific action ('fetches content from a URL and extracts readable text'), identifies the resource (URL content), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying content types (HTML/PDF) and extraction focus, unlike search_web or summarize_url which imply different operations.

  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 fetching and extracting text from URLs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_web (likely for broader web searches) or summarize_url (likely for summarization). 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.