Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate_reportC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Even without annotations, the description clearly discloses async behavior, immediate task ID return, no persistence, cancellation options, and demo simulation details.

  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?

  Three sentences covering purpose, async nature, and demo caveat. Efficient but could be slightly more concise.

  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?

  Covers async behavior and task management, but fails to explain what data the report uses (topic parameter missing) and does not describe return value shape or error scenarios.

  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 description mentions a 'given topic' but the schema has no parameters. This misalignment reduces the added value; with 100% schema coverage (zero parameters), the description should not imply nonexistent parameters.

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

  Purpose2/5

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

  The description states 'Generate an analytics report for a given topic' but the input schema has no parameters, making it unclear how to specify the topic. This contradiction reduces clarity.

  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 indicates this is a long-running async operation and mentions polling and cancellation. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or specify 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.

• greet_userA
  3.6/5.0
  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 that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, and is subject to rate limiting (600 calls/minute) and timeout (30s). However, it contradicts the input schema by mentioning a 'name' parameter that does not exist, which undermines reliability.

  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 three concise sentences, front-loading the main purpose and usage. Every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy or filler.

  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 tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, safety, and constraints. However, the misleading claim about a 'name' parameter reduces completeness and trustworthiness.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  The input schema has zero parameters, but the description claims a 'name' parameter defaults to 'World'. This is misleading and adds no value beyond the schema; it introduces confusion about the tool's actual interface.

  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 greets a user by name and returns a personalized greeting, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It also mentions verifying server connectivity and welcoming, further clarifying the purpose. The sibling tools (generate_report, get_config, etc.) are unrelated, so differentiation is clear.

  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 explicitly states 'Use this tool to verify server connectivity or welcome a user,' providing clear context for when to use it. It also mentions demo server constraints, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives, though the sibling tools are clearly different.

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

• search_documentsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Discloses mock nature, no auth, rate limits, timeout, and non-destructive behavior despite no annotations.

  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?

  Concise but informative; key information front-loaded; no redundant sentences.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Explains return values (ranked results with snippets) and failure modes; sufficient for tool's complexity.

  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 covers 100% parameter semantics; description adds no extra detail beyond 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?

  Clearly states 'Search documents by keyword using full-text matching' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling 'search_semantic'.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly says 'Use this when you need to find documents containing specific words or phrases' and directs to alternative for semantic search.

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

• get_configA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, description fully discloses read-only nature, no side effects, rate limit, timeout, lack of authentication, and demo limitation (static JSON, no real secrets).

  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?

  Four sentences, each essential: purpose, usage, read-only statement, and constraints. Front-loaded and efficient.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given zero parameters and no output schema, description covers purpose, use cases, behavior, and constraints fully, leaving no ambiguity.

  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?

  Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, baseline 4 per guidelines. No additional parameter info needed.

  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?

  Clearly states 'Retrieve the current server configuration including version, environment, and feature flags' with specific verb and resource. Differentiates from siblings like generate_report, greet_user, search_documents, and search_semantic.

  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?

  Provides explicit use cases: 'inspect server state or verify deployment settings.' Does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but context implies appropriate usage.

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

• search_semanticA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, but the description fully covers behavioral traits: read-only, mock embeddings (demo), no auth, same rate limit/timeout, and does not modify documents.

  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?

  Well-structured and concise. First sentence states core purpose, then usage guidance, then demo caveats. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

  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?

  Covers purpose, usage, behavioral aspects, and schema. However, without an output schema, the description does not explain return values or result format, which could be helpful for a search 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?

  Schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the semantic nature, but does not add new parameter-level details beyond 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?

  Clearly states semantic embedding-based matching, ranking by meaning similarity, and explicitly distinguishes from exact keyword search, naming the sibling tool search_documents.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly says when to use (user intent matters more than exact wording) and when not (use search_documents instead). Also includes demo context and limitations.

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