Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_design_tokensC
  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 must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Download' without indicating whether it's read-only, if it triggers side effects, or any rate limits. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

  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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it sacrifices informative detail for brevity, which is acceptable but leaves room for improvement.

  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?

  For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return format or behavior. It only mentions the input, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect from the download (e.g., file type, structure).

  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% (resourceId has a clear description). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, 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 action 'Download design tokens' and the targets 'project or styleguide'. It distinguishes from sibling tools which handle different resources (layers, components, screens). However, it could be more specific about the output format.

  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, when not to use it, or any comparison to sibling tools like 'get_component'.

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

• get_componentA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it fetches details, but does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. This is a significant gap.

  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 long, front-loads the action and result, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

  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 that the tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides basic functionality but lacks details on expected URL format, return structure, and behavioral aspects. It is minimally adequate.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The only parameter 'url' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description says 'specific Zeplin component' but does not clarify what format or expected content the URL should have, leaving ambiguity.

  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 it fetches detailed design specifications for a Zeplin component, listing included properties, variants, layers, and tokens. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_screen (for screens) and get_design_tokens (for tokens).

  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 includes a usage hint: 'Use this when you need to understand the structure and styling of a single, reusable UI element.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though sibling tools provide context.

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

• download_layer_assetA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully describe behavior. It mentions that the tool downloads and saves to a local path, and that the directory will be created if missing. However, it does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, what happens on failure, or any authentication requirements. Some important behavioral aspects are missing.

  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 concise (two sentences) with no extraneous information. It front-loads the primary action and includes the use case. Every sentence is necessary and adds value. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

  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 has no output schema, so the description should hint at what the tool returns. It does not mention any return value or error handling. The parameter descriptions are thorough, but missing output information makes it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that layerSourceId comes from the sourceId field in get_screen/get_component, that localPath should be absolute and directory creation is automatic, and gives guidance on choosing assetType (e.g., 'svg' for vector, 'png' for bitmap). This enhances understanding beyond the raw schema.

  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 what the tool does: downloads a visual asset for a layer from Zeplin and saves it locally. It specifies the resource (layer asset), action (download and save), and origin (Zeplin), leaving no ambiguity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_screen (does not download assets).

  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 a clear use case: when an asset from the design is missing from the codebase. It tells when to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. However, the context makes it evident that other tools are for fetching different data.

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

• get_screenA
  4.2/5.0
  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. It discloses that the tool fetches various design data, implying a read-only operation. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but the scope of returned data is well described.

  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 consists of three sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by details and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

  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?

  The description lists what data is returned (variants, layers, annotations, tokens), compensating for the lack of an output schema. It does not specify response format or error handling, but for a read tool with clear inputs, this is nearly 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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add details about the 'url' parameter (missing schema description) or further clarify parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema partially covers parameter meaning.

  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 'Fetches detailed design data for a specific screen from Zeplin', using a specific verb and resource. It lists the contents (variants, layers, annotations, tokens) and distinguishes from sibling tools focused on layer assets, components, or tokens.

  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 a clear usage context: 'Use this to understand screen layout, content, and interactions for development or review.' It implies when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct to alternatives (e.g., get_component for a specific component).

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