Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search-booksC
  2.6/5.0
  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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Search items in catalog' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether it returns partial/full matches, supports pagination, has rate limits, or requires authentication. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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 with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more specific. The structure is straightforward but lacks front-loading of critical details.

  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 simple but vague description, this is incomplete for effective tool use. The description doesn't explain what 'items' are, what 'catalog' refers to, or what the search returns. For a search tool with one parameter, more context about behavior and results is needed.

  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 one parameter 'query' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Search items in catalog' states a general purpose (searching items) but is vague about the resource domain. It mentions 'catalog' which implies books given the tool name, but doesn't explicitly state 'books' or differentiate from potential sibling tools like get-book. The verb 'search' is clear, but the resource specification is incomplete.

  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 get-book or get-user-info. There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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

• get-bookC
  2.9/5.0
  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 it retrieves information without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits, which are critical for a tool with no structured safety hints.

  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 front-loaded and wastes no space, 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential return formats, or error handling, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

  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 the single parameter 'book_id' adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval of a 'specific book', which aligns with the schema but doesn't enhance parameter understanding, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific book'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search-books' (which likely searches multiple books) or 'get-user-info' (different resource), so it misses full sibling distinction.

  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 retrieving details of a specific book, but it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a book_id) or contrast with 'search-books' for broader queries, leaving usage context unclear.

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

• get-user-infoB
  3.1/5.0
  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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'basic info' includes. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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 purpose without any redundant or unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

  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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'basic info' entails or the return format, which is crucial for an agent to understand the tool's behavior. For a tool with such sparse structured data, more context is needed.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, aligning with the schema. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters.

  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 'Get' and the resource 'current user's basic info', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-book' or 'search-books', which operate on different resources, so it doesn't reach the highest 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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any context for its application. It simply states what it does without indicating scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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