Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• filter_sensitive_wordsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states replacement but omits details: case sensitivity, what happens with no matches, whether it modifies original text, or if all categories are used when not specified. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

  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?

  One sentence (12 words) with no filler. Action, resource, and mechanism are front-loaded. Every word contributes.

  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?

  No output schema, but description does not mention what is returned (presumably filtered text). Sibling tools exist but no guidance on workflow. For a 3-parameter tool with optional categories, this incomplete.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond schema: 'replacement string' is already in schema for replacement param. No extra clarity for categories or text.

  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 action: 'Filter sensitive words from text by replacing them with a replacement string'. It distinguishes from siblings: detect_sensitive_words detects only, get_categories lists categories, get_word_count counts words. Verb+resource is specific.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context. Implicitly, it is for cleaning text, but explicit comparison to siblings is missing.

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

• get_word_countB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does, but fails to mention whether it is a read-only operation, what the count format is (e.g., unique or total words), or any authentication requirements. This lack of detail requires the agent to infer too much.

  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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could benefit from slight restructuring to include usage context.

  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?

  The description is adequate for a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. However, it lacks explanation of the return value (e.g., integer count) and does not help the agent differentiate from siblings, making it minimally 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage (the parameter 'category' is described as 'Optional: get count for specific category only'). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but adds no extra value.

  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 'Get the number of words in the sensitive word database' clearly specifies the action (get) and the resource (number of words). It is precise and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like detect_sensitive_words and get_categories, which have different purposes.

  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 such as detect_sensitive_words or filter_sensitive_words. It also does not explain when to use the optional category parameter, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

• detect_sensitive_wordsB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions detection using a library but does not specify the return format, side effects, or whether it is read-only.

  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 concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without extraneous details.

  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?

  The tool is simple with two parameters, and the description provides minimal context. However, it omits details about the return value, which may reduce completeness for an agent needing to interpret results.

  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?

  The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool detects sensitive words in text and specifies the library used. It distinguishes from siblings like filter_sensitive_words and get_categories by its focus on detection.

  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 filter_sensitive_words. The description lacks context about appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.

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

• get_categoriesB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the obvious retrieval action. It adds no information about side effects, permissions, or other important behaviors.

  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, straightforward sentence that is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

  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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what a 'category' looks like or any constraints, which could cause confusion.

  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 baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since none exist.

  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 ('list of available sensitive word categories'), and it distinguishes this tool from its siblings which handle detection, filtering, and counting of sensitive words.

  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 detect_sensitive_words or filter_sensitive_words, and lacks any context or prerequisites.

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