Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• download_paperC
  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. It mentions downloading and creating a resource, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what format the download is in, where the resource is stored, whether it's a read/write operation, potential rate limits, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with mutation implications.

  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, efficient sentence that states the core action. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the download and resource creation aspects for clarity.

  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 annotations, no output schema, and a tool that involves downloading and resource creation (implying mutation), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the resource is, how it's created, return values, error cases, or dependencies. This is insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

  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 both parameters ('paper_id' and 'check_status') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between downloading and checking status. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with the verb 'download' and resource 'paper', and mentions creating a resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_papers' and 'search_papers' by focusing on downloading, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'read_paper' which might have overlapping functionality.

  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 'read_paper' or 'search_papers'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid arXiv ID, or when the 'check_status' parameter should be used. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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

• search_papersC
  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. It mentions 'advanced filtering' but doesn't explain what that entails, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with the 'save_to_file' parameter. For a search tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

  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 that front-loads the core action ('search for papers on arXiv') and adds a key feature ('with advanced filtering'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

  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 of 7 parameters, low schema coverage (29%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or detailed behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for the agent to navigate. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple filtering options and potential side effects like file saving.

  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 low at 29%, with only 'save_to_file' and 'min_citations' having descriptions. The description adds minimal value by hinting at 'advanced filtering' which relates to parameters like 'categories', 'date_from', etc., but doesn't provide specific meanings or usage examples. It compensates somewhat but not enough to fully bridge the coverage gap, resulting in a baseline score.

  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 verb ('search') and resource ('papers on arXiv'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'download_paper', 'list_papers', and 'read_paper' by specifying searching with filtering, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_papers' which might also list papers. This is specific but could be more precise about the advanced filtering aspect.

  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 'list_papers' or 'download_paper'. It mentions 'advanced filtering' but doesn't specify contexts or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone. This lack of explicit alternatives or conditions reduces its helpfulness.

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

• list_papersB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or what 'available as resources' entails. It's minimal and leaves key operational details unclear.

  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 that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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. It doesn't explain what 'papers' are, how they're listed, or the return format, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely returns a list of resources.

  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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable here, but it doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none.

  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 verb ('List') and resource ('all existing papers'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_papers' or 'read_paper', which prevents a perfect score.

  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 like 'search_papers' or 'download_paper'. The description implies a broad listing without filtering, but it lacks explicit instructions or exclusions.

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

• read_paperB
  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 the full burden. It states the tool reads content in markdown format, but lacks behavioral details such as error handling (e.g., if paper_id is invalid), performance (e.g., size limits), or side effects (e.g., caching). This leaves gaps for safe agent operation.

  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 is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential format details, making it appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

  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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and format, but lacks completeness for safe use (e.g., no error or behavioral context), which is a gap despite the simple schema.

  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 'paper_id' documented as 'The arXiv ID of the paper to read'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

  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 ('read the full content') and resource ('stored paper'), specifying the output format ('in markdown format'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'download_paper' (likely for file retrieval) and 'list_papers'/'search_papers' (for listing/searching), but does not explicitly name these alternatives.

  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. The description implies it's for reading content, but does not specify prerequisites (e.g., paper must be stored), exclusions, or direct comparisons to siblings like 'download_paper' for raw files.

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