Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fix_diagramA
  4.5/5.0
  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 delivers substantial behavioral context. It details specific fixes applied (arrow syntax corrections, missing bracket/brace/quote fixes, shape name corrections), output format details (list of fixes, corrected code, validation status), and workflow positioning. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but provides rich operational context.

  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?

  The description is comprehensive but verbose with XML-style markup. While well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when-to-use, when-not-to-use, examples, fixes-applied, parameters, output-format, workflow-position), it could be more concise. Every section adds value, but the markup adds unnecessary length.

  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?

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and a 2-parameter tool with mutation behavior, the description provides exceptional completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, parameter context, output format, workflow positioning, and concrete examples. For a tool that modifies content, this level of disclosure is comprehensive.

  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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context: it explains that 'content' is 'the diagram code to fix - will be analyzed and corrected' and that 'diagramType' 'must match the diagram type for appropriate fixes'. This provides practical guidance beyond the schema's technical specifications.

  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 purpose as 'Automatically fix common syntax errors in Eraser diagrams and return corrected version' - a specific verb ('fix'), resource ('Eraser diagrams'), and outcome ('return corrected version'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools validate_diagram (diagnostic) and create_diagram (creation).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (user asks to fix/correct/repair, after validate_diagram finds auto-correctable errors) and when-not-to-use scenarios (user only wants diagnostics, diagram already valid, design/structural changes needed). It names specific alternatives (validate_diagram, create_diagram) and provides workflow context.

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

• validate_diagramA
  4.7/5.0
  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 so effectively. It describes behavioral aspects like handling partial or complete diagram code, providing line-specific errors and warnings, and positioning in a validate→fix→create workflow. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers core operational behavior thoroughly.

  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 well-structured with clear XML-like sections (purpose, when-to-use, when-not-to-use, examples, parameters, output-types, workflow-position) that make it easy to parse. Every section adds value with no redundant information, and the content is appropriately sized for a tool with clear sibling relationships and behavioral complexity.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (validation with detailed feedback), no annotations, no output schema, and clear sibling tools, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, examples, parameter semantics, output types, and workflow positioning. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error format details, but the output-types section provides sufficient high-level 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that content can be 'partial or complete' (not in schema) and that diagramType 'must match the actual diagram type for accurate validation' (emphasizing importance). This provides practical usage guidance that enhances parameter understanding.

  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 purpose as 'Check Eraser diagram syntax for errors and provide detailed feedback about validity' with a specific verb ('check'), resource ('Eraser diagram syntax'), and outcome ('errors and detailed feedback'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools create_diagram and fix_diagram by focusing on validation rather than creation or correction.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit guidance with dedicated <when-to-use> and <when-not-to-use> sections that list specific scenarios and alternatives. It names sibling tools (create_diagram, fix_diagram) for when not to use this tool, and includes example user queries to illustrate appropriate contexts.

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

• create_diagramA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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 and does so comprehensively. It explains the tool's position in workflows ('Typically the final step after validate_diagram and/or fix_diagram'), describes the output format in detail ('Success message with diagram URLs', 'Image URL: Direct link to view/download', 'Edit URL: Link to open and edit'), and provides practical guidance about when content should be ready ('must be syntactically valid').

  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 uses a well-structured XML format with clear sections (purpose, when-to-use, when-not-to-use, examples, parameters, output-format, workflow-position). Every section serves a distinct purpose with no redundant information. The examples are practical and illustrate different usage scenarios efficiently.

  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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines with sibling differentiation, parameter semantics with practical advice, detailed output format description, workflow positioning, and concrete examples. This fully compensates for the lack of structured metadata.

  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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that content must be 'complete diagram code in Eraser DSL format - must be syntactically valid' (emphasizing completeness and validity requirements), provides guidance on theme selection ('dark works well for most cases, light for print/documents'), and explains background parameter usage ('usually true unless user needs transparency'). However, it doesn't add significant value for diagramType beyond what the enum provides.

  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 'Create and render diagrams on Eraser.io, returning URLs for viewing and editing' - a specific verb ('create and render'), resource ('diagrams on Eraser.io'), and output ('URLs for viewing and editing'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings (fix_diagram and validate_diagram) by emphasizing creation/rendering versus validation/fixing.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use sections with clear alternatives named (validate_diagram, fix_diagram). It gives specific scenarios for usage ('User asks to create, make, generate...', 'User provides complete diagram content') and exclusions ('User only wants to check if syntax is correct', 'Diagram content has known syntax errors').

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