Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_pica_platform_actionsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 mentions that this tool 'shows you what actions are available for that platform's API,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, whether it requires authentication, or what the return format looks like. It adds some context about the platform name format but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response structure.

  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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidelines and prerequisites, and the third adds context about parameter format and outcome. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it front-loaded 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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter context well. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error handling, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

  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 schema already fully documents the single 'platform' parameter. The description adds marginal value by reiterating the need for 'exact kebab-case platform name from the integrations list' and linking it to list_pica_integrations, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 'Get' and resource 'all available actions for a specific platform', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is for discovering what actions are possible, unlike execute_pica_action (executes actions), get_pica_action_knowledge (gets knowledge about actions), and list_pica_integrations (lists integrations).

  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 on when to use this tool: 'Call this after list_pica_integrations to discover what actions are possible on a platform.' It also specifies an alternative (list_pica_integrations) and gives clear prerequisites, making it highly actionable for an agent.

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

• execute_pica_actionA
  4.3/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes critical behavioral traits: it specifies the tool's role in executing operations on third-party platforms, outlines a mandatory prerequisite workflow (calling get_pica_action_knowledge first), and provides guidance on intent confirmation. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, error handling, or response formats, which would be valuable for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and immediately following with critical usage rules. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential guidance. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating some clauses, and the structure, while clear, isn't perfectly streamlined (e.g., the 'CRITICAL' and 'REQUIRED WORKFLOW' sections are somewhat repetitive in emphasis).

  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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description does a good job of covering usage context, prerequisites, and intent differentiation. It compensates for the lack of annotations by specifying behavioral constraints. However, it doesn't address potential outcomes, error scenarios, or examples of successful execution, which would help an agent understand what to expect after invocation.

  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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how parameters like 'action', 'connectionKey', or 'data' should be derived or used in practice. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute a Pica action to perform actual operations on third-party platforms.' It specifies the verb ('execute') and resource ('Pica action'), and distinguishes it from siblings by contrasting execution with building/creating code/forms/applications, which should use get_pica_action_knowledge instead.

  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 usage guidelines: it states when to use ('when the user's intent is to EXECUTE an action'), when not to use ('DO NOT call this when the user wants to BUILD or CREATE'), and names an alternative ('get_pica_action_knowledge'). It also specifies a required workflow ('Must call get_pica_action_knowledge first') and advises on uncertainty handling ('ask for confirmation before proceeding').

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

• get_pica_action_knowledgeA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 effectively discloses that this tool loads documentation into context (a behavioral trait), is mandatory before execution (a prerequisite), and helps understand requirements and caveats. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

  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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second provides mandatory usage guidelines. Every phrase adds value—there's no redundancy, and critical information (the 'MUST' directive) is front-loaded for immediate visibility.

  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 the tool's complexity (pre-execution documentation loading with 2 required parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, mandatory usage, parameter sources, and workflow context. However, it doesn't describe the return format or what 'comprehensive documentation' entails, leaving some ambiguity about the output.

  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%, providing detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing that action_id comes from get_pica_platform_actions and platform from list_pica_integrations, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 'Get' and resource 'comprehensive documentation for a specific action', specifying it includes parameters, requirements, and usage examples. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming execute_pica_action as a tool that must be called after this one, and references get_pica_platform_actions and list_pica_integrations as sources for required parameters.

  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 on when to use this tool: 'MUST call this tool before execute_pica_action' and 'required for successful execution.' It also specifies alternatives by referencing that action_id comes from get_pica_platform_actions and platform from list_pica_integrations, creating clear workflow dependencies.

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

• list_pica_integrationsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 discloses that the tool returns connections the user has and all available platforms in kebab-case format, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, error conditions, or authentication needs, leaving some 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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance and output format. It is front-loaded with essential information 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.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and output format. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return structure (e.g., list vs. object), but the kebab-case hint partially compensates.

  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?

  With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining that no inputs are needed and implicitly confirms this through usage guidance, though it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required'.

  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 ('List') and resource ('all available Pica integrations and platforms'), providing specific scope. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on discovery rather than execution or knowledge retrieval, making the purpose unambiguous.

  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?

  Explicitly states 'ALWAYS call this tool first in any workflow to discover what platforms and connections are available,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also mentions that the output is needed for subsequent tool calls, reinforcing its role as a prerequisite without naming alternatives directly.

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