Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_documentsB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool searches 'inside all documents' (implying potentially broad scope) and returns line numbers, but lacks details on case sensitivity, regex support, performance implications, or whether it is read-only. Minimal transparency beyond core functionality.

  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?

  Two sentences with no fluff. The structure is straightforward but could be improved by separating the parameter description from the main purpose sentence. Still, it's efficient 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 a single parameter and existence of an output schema, the description adequately states return format (matching lines with line numbers). However, it omits behavioral context like search scope limitations, performance impact, or how results are ordered. Sufficient for basic use but not fully complete.

  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 description must compensate. It defines 'query' as 'the search term or keyword to find', but this adds little beyond the parameter name. No format, syntax, or usage constraints are explained, leaving the agent with insufficient semantic guidance.

  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 'Searches' and the resource 'documents', and specifies the result 'matching lines with line numbers'. This distinguishes it from siblings list_documents and read_document, which serve different purposes.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or alternatives. The purpose implies usage for keyword searching, but no exclusions or context comparing with list_documents or read_document are provided.

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

• list_documentsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it lists filenames. It does not disclose read-only nature, potential performance characteristics, or whether any authentication is needed. For a tool with zero annotations, more explicit behavioral notes are expected.

  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, no filler, perfectly sized for the simple operation. Every word earns its place.

  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 simple 0-param listing tool with an output schema, the description is adequate. It clarifies scope ('all available documentation files') but could mention ordering or whether the list is dynamic. Still, it's nearly complete.

  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?

  No parameters exist and schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter info. Per rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4.

  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 it lists filenames of all documentation files. The verb 'lists' and resource 'filenames of documentation files' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings read_document and search_documents which focus on content retrieval and searching respectively.

  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 list_documents vs the siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to list before reading or searching, or any exclusions. The agent must infer usage from tool names alone.

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

• read_documentA
  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 the full burden. It clearly states the action (reads and returns contents), and the singular required parameter (filename) limits behavioral ambiguity. Return format is not detailed, but an output schema exists to supplement. No contradictions found.

  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 concise: one line of purpose followed by one line for the parameter. Every sentence is necessary and adds value. No fluff.

  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?

  The description is adequate for a simple read operation with one parameter and an output schema. However, it does not specify return format behavior (e.g., returns raw text, structured data, metadata) or mention error cases (e.g., file not found). For completeness, it could hint at what the output schema provides.

  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 must compensate. It explains 'filename: The exact name of the file to read' with an example ('SDK.txt'), adding meaning beyond the schema's property type and title. This clearly helps an agent understand what value to provide.

  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 reads and returns the contents of a documentation file. The verb 'reads' and resource 'documentation file' are specific. The tool's purpose is distinct from siblings like list_documents (listing) and search_documents (searching).

  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 a specific file content is needed, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings. It mentions the filename argument format, but no guidance on when to use read_document vs search_documents (e.g., if searching, use search_documents).

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