Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• draft_postC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'generate a template' without revealing if this is a read-only operation, whether it calls external APIs, has side effects, or requires authentication. Agent cannot assess safety or constraints.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single sentence is concise, but it sacrifices informativeness. Key behavioral and parameter details are omitted; the tool definition would benefit from a few more sentences to improve clarity without being verbose.

  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?

  With 7 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for correct invocation. Agent lacks understanding of expected output format, parameter interactions, and usage 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 low (43%). Description only mentions 'topic and tone', which are already described in the schema. It does not add meaning for key_points, hashtag_count, target_audience, or cta, failing to compensate for missing schema descriptions.

  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?

  Description clearly states it generates a LinkedIn post template based on topic and tone. Verb and resource are clear, and the tool is distinguished from siblings (analyze, create, format, generate_hashtags) by implying a draft/pre-creation step, though explicit differentiation is missing.

  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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like create_post or analyze_post. The description does not mention prerequisites, outcomes, or alternative scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

• generate_hashtagsC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided. The description is too minimal to disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, response behavior, or processing details.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is very short (one sentence) but does not convey enough information. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

  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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details and return value information.

  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%. The description only references 'topic' but provides no details about 'count' or 'custom_keywords', leaving the agent uninformed about these 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 action (generate), the resource (hashtags), and the context (LinkedIn for a topic). It is distinct from sibling tools which deal with posts.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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

• create_postC
  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 fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens to existing posts. The mention of 'format' is ambiguous.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. No extraneous information, but it could benefit from slight expansion without losing efficiency.

  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 output schema and annotations, the description is too brief for a creation tool with 4 parameters. It omits return value, draft behavior, formatting rules, and error conditions, leaving the agent underinformed.

  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 only 25% (only 'content' has a description). The tool description adds no parameter details, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. Critical fields like 'visibility' and 'save_as_draft' remain unexplained.

  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 creates a LinkedIn post, either publishing or saving as draft. The verb 'create' matches the tool name, and 'format' adds context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'draft_post' or 'format_post', but the scope is broader.

  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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_post', 'draft_post', or 'format_post'. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage.

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

• format_postB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'format' without detailing what formatting entails (e.g., modifying content, adding structure), nor does it mention any side effects or prerequisites.

  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 redundant information. Every word contributes to the core 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?

  Given no output schema, no annotations, and 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is too brief. It fails to explain the transformation logic, return value, or constraints, making it incomplete for reliable tool invocation.

  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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'raw content' and 'hashtags' but does not explain the boolean parameters 'add_emojis' and 'add_line_breaks', leaving their impact unclear.

  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 verb 'format' and the resource 'raw content' with a specific purpose ('proper LinkedIn structure and hashtags'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_post and create_post by focusing on formatting.

  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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or under what conditions, leaving the agent to infer its applicability.

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

• analyze_postA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only analysis but does not disclose scoring criteria, potential modifications, or authentication requirements. Basic transparency is present but lacks depth.

  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?

  Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary and there is no extraneous information.

  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?

  No output schema exists, so description should compensate. It mentions 'score' and 'improvement suggestions' but lacks details on output structure. For a simple tool with one parameter, it is moderately complete.

  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 parameter 'content' already described. The description adds no further meaning beyond stating the overall purpose, making it adequate but not additive.

  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 scores a LinkedIn post and returns improvement suggestions, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from siblings which are creation, drafting, formatting, and hashtag generation.

  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 when needing a score and suggestions for a post, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Context signals show siblings are different enough to infer usage, but no direct guidance is given.

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