Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• convert_html_to_uxmlC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  The description says it 'returns conversion patterns and best practices', which conflicts with the tool name's implication of performing a conversion. This ambiguity is misleading; the actual behavior (whether it outputs converted UXML or just patterns) is not disclosed. No annotations exist to mitigate this.

  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 only two sentences, concise and front-loaded. However, the phrasing could be more precise without adding length.

  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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose but lacks details on output format, limitations, or when it might not work. It is adequate but not thorough.

  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 the parameter is already well-described in the schema. The description adds only general context about guidance and examples, not additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

  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 tool converts HTML to UXML, but adds ambiguity by mentioning 'guidance and examples' and 'conversion patterns', which may imply it is a reference rather than an actual converter. It distinguishes from sibling tools that fetch code examples or references.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools suggest possible overlaps (e.g., getting code examples), but no when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are provided.

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

• get_unity_script_referenceB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. Describes only a read operation with no side effects, but lacks any disclosure of input constraints, rate limits, or potential errors. Minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

  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?

  Extremely concise: two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  With one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what format the documentation returns, whether it includes methods and properties, or how it relates to other tools. Leaves some gaps for an agent.

  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 has one parameter (class_name) with full description coverage (100%). The tool description does not add any additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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?

  Clearly states it retrieves Unity Script API reference for UIToolkit, with specific verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'API reference documentation'. However, does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_uitoolkit_code_example' or 'read_prerendered_docs', leaving slight ambiguity.

  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 phrase 'Use this to get detailed API information' implies when to use, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or comparison with alternatives (e.g., code examples, prerendered docs). Context must be inferred by the agent.

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

• get_uitoolkit_code_exampleA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It implies a read-only fetch operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or lacks side effects. The description is adequate but not rich.

  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 concise sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and usage. There is no unnecessary 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?

  The description explains what the tool does and where it fetches examples from. However, it does not describe the format of the returned code examples or the response structure. Given the lack of an output schema, this is a minor gap.

  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 schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'example_name'.

  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 that the tool fetches actual code examples from a specific repository (Unity's UI Toolkit manual code examples repo), making its purpose unambiguous. It differentiates from sibling tools by specifying the exact source.

  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 provides a clear usage scenario ('retrieve real implementation samples showing UIToolkit syntax and usage patterns') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools.

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

• read_prerendered_docsA
  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 must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool reads pre-rendered docs from two sources, which implies a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format, leaving some gaps.

  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 core purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

  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 the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly sufficient. It could be improved by mentioning the output format (e.g., returns HTML text or plain text), but overall it provides a clear functional overview.

  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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by providing concrete examples (e.g., 'UXML' for manual, 'Button' for script-api) and clarifying the mapping of doc_type to document type, exceeding the schema alone.

  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 reads pre-rendered documentation for Unity UIToolkit, specifying two distinct sources (HTML manual and C# source code). The name and description together unambiguously indicate the tool's function, and it is distinguishable from siblings which focus on code examples or script references.

  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 implies that the tool is used to retrieve documentation text, differentiating it from siblings like get_uitoolkit_code_example or get_unity_script_reference. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to alternatives.

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

• fetch_unity_example_codeA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the action (fetching source code) and the source (Unity's UI Toolkit examples repository). No mention of authentication or rate limits, but for a read-only fetch operation, the description is reasonably transparent.

  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, front-loaded with the main action ('Fetches actual source code content...'). No unnecessary words or redundancy. Every sentence serves a purpose: first explains what it does, second explains when to use it.

  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 the simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and usage. It doesn't describe the return format, but for a source code fetch, the content is typically plain text, which is implicit.

  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% for the single parameter 'file_path'. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing a concrete example and explaining the parameter's context (e.g., from documentation code source tags). This helps the agent understand how to populate the parameter correctly.

  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?

  Description clearly states the tool fetches source code from a specific file in Unity's UI Toolkit examples repository. It uses specific verbs ('fetches', 'actual source code content') and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on code source references from documentation tags like <code source='...'/>.

  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?

  Explicitly specifies when to use: when you have a code source reference from documentation and need to see the actual implementation. While it doesn't state when not to use or name alternatives explicitly, the context signals (sibling tools) and the clear use case provide good guidance.

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