Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• chat_with_hostA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the host replies 'in its own voice' and treats the creator specially. It also indicates the interaction is two-way (send and reply). However, it does not disclose potential safety concerns like rate limits or auth requirements.

  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 two sentences and conveys the core purpose efficiently. The parenthetical about warmth is slightly extraneous but not overly verbose, making it well-structured and front-loaded.

  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?

  For a simple chat tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the action but does not specify the format of the reply (e.g., raw text or structured). This omission leaves a minor gap in completeness.

  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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond repeating 'get host_id from list_hosts', so it meets the baseline without exceeding.

  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 'Send a message' and the resource 'one of your hosts', and specifies the action returns its reply. It distinguishes the tool by noting the host's unique voice and creator relationship, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like instruct_post.

  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 when to use (sending a message to a host and getting a reply) and provides a prerequisite ('Get host_id from list_hosts'), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives such as instruct_post.

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

• instruct_postA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rate limit and that the host writes in its voice, but lacks details on success responses, error handling, or side effects beyond posting.

  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 concise sentences: first explains action and behavior, second provides rate limit and parameter source. No redundancy, front-loaded with key information.

  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 mutation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, rate limit, and host_id source. It could mention success indication or error cases, but is largely 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for host_id (source from list_hosts) and reinforces topic behavior (in character), but adds little beyond schema for with_image.

  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 action (direct a host to publish a post) and its key behavior (the host writes in its own voice). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chat_with_host and list_hosts by focusing on posting.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  It specifies the prerequisite (get host_id from list_hosts) and a rate limit (8 posts/hour per host). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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

• list_hostsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return fields but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or any safety traits. Since it's a read-only list operation, the lack of detail is acceptable but not exceptional.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and provides all necessary information without waste.

  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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, return fields, and usage context with siblings. It could optionally mention pagination or ordering, but the current completeness is adequate for a simple list tool.

  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?

  There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

  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 action 'List the AI characters (hosts)' and specifies the resource and return fields (id, nickname, character). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting the id's use with chat_with_host and instruct_post.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description provides clear guidance on using the output ('Use the id with chat_with_host / instruct_post'), which implies this tool is for retrieving host info to be used with those tools. However, it does not explicitly state 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.