Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• retrieve_dataC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('retrieve') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the key doesn't exist), performance characteristics, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a cache.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 complexity (a cache retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like, error conditions, or how it differs from siblings. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'key' parameter fully documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples or constraints). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the action ('retrieve') and resource ('data from the cache'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what type of data or cache is involved, and it doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_cache_stats' (which might also retrieve data about the cache). It's not tautological but lacks specificity.

  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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., data must be stored first), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'store_data' or 'clear_cache'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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

• clear_cacheC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Clear' implies a destructive operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires admin permissions, if it's reversible, potential performance impact, or rate limits. The description states what it does but lacks critical context for a mutation tool.

  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 action and scope, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

  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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, return values, or error conditions. Given the complexity of cache clearing (which can affect system performance), more context is needed beyond the minimal purpose statement.

  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 100%, with the parameter 'key' documented as optional for clearing specific entries (or all if omitted). The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'specific or all', which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 'Clear specific or all cache entries' clearly states the verb (clear) and resource (cache entries) with scope options (specific/all). It distinguishes from siblings like get_cache_stats (read-only) and retrieve_data/store_data (data operations), though not explicitly named. The purpose is specific but could be more explicit about sibling differentiation.

  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 get_cache_stats or store_data. It mentions 'specific or all' but doesn't explain scenarios for each option or prerequisites. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, usage is implied at best.

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

• get_cache_statsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get cache statistics' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or aggregated data, or what format the statistics are in. The description is too minimal to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic 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 'Get cache statistics' is extremely concise—three words that directly state the action. It's front-loaded with no unnecessary words or sentences, making it efficient and easy to parse. This is an example of optimal conciseness 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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns data (statistics). It doesn't explain what statistics are retrieved (e.g., hit rates, memory usage), the return format, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool with potential complexity in output, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in 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?

  The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are no parameters. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for zero parameters, as no additional semantic information is needed.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Get cache statistics' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('cache statistics'), which is adequate for understanding the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (e.g., clear_cache, retrieve_data, store_data), making it somewhat vague in comparison. It's not tautological but lacks specificity about what statistics are retrieved.

  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 clear_cache or retrieve_data. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone. This lack of explicit guidance reduces its effectiveness in tool selection.

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

• store_dataC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool stores data in a cache with optional TTL, which implies a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it overwrites existing keys, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

  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 includes only essential additional detail (optional TTL), making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

  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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., overwrite behavior, error handling), return values, and usage context relative to siblings. Given the complexity of a write operation, more completeness is needed to guide an agent 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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (key, value, ttl) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional TTL', which is redundant with the schema. No additional syntax, format, or constraints are provided beyond what's in the structured data.

  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 action ('Store data') and target ('in the cache'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_data' or 'clear_cache', which would require mentioning it's specifically for writing/inserting data rather than reading or deleting.

  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 includes 'with optional TTL', which implies a usage scenario for time-based expiration, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retrieve_data' for reading or 'clear_cache' for deletion. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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