Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_organizationC
  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 behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('Obtain'), but doesn't specify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic retrieval action, failing to compensate for the lack of 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?

  The description is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a structured 'Args' section that efficiently lists parameters with brief explanations. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the phrasing 'Obtain VC details according to VC ID' is slightly redundant and could be more polished.

  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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is limited by gaps in transparency and guidance.

  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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clearly defines 'org_id' as 'Organization ID' and provides meaningful semantics for 'include_team' and 'include_investments' with default values, adding significant value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail data types or constraints, keeping it from a perfect score.

  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 states the tool 'Obtain VC details according to VC ID,' which clarifies it retrieves information about venture capital organizations. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'VC details' specifically include beyond the optional team and investment parameters, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project' or 'search' in terms of scope or use case.

  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 'get_project' or 'search.' It lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear direction on tool selection in relation to siblings.

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

• searchB
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches for 'brief information' but doesn't clarify what 'brief' entails, whether results are paginated, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by parameter details. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the 'Args:' section could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity while conveying essential information.

  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's moderate complexity (search function with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. The output schema likely handles return values, reducing the burden on the description, but more context on tool behavior would improve completeness.

  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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage, providing only a basic string parameter 'query'. The description compensates by explaining that 'query' can include 'project/institution names, tokens, or other related terms', which clarifies the expected content and scope of the search parameter.

  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's purpose: 'Search for Project/VC/People brief information according to keywords.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource types (Project/VC/People), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_organization' and 'get_project'. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

  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_organization' or 'get_project'. It mentions what can be searched (project/institution names, tokens, etc.) but doesn't indicate scenarios where this search tool is preferred over direct lookup tools. No explicit when/when-not statements or alternatives are provided.

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

• get_projectB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it describes the basic operation, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what happens with invalid project IDs, or any rate limits. The description is functional but lacks important behavioral context.

  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 well-structured and appropriately sized. The purpose is stated clearly in the first sentence, followed by a parameter section. While efficient, the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise, and the overall description could benefit from more usage context.

  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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides good coverage of the tool's purpose and parameters. However, for a tool with no annotations and sibling tools available, it should include more guidance on when to use this versus alternatives and mention any behavioral constraints.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The description provides excellent parameter semantics that go beyond the input schema. While the schema has 0% description coverage, the description clearly explains what each parameter does ('unique identifier for the project', 'whether to include team member information', 'whether to include investor information') and provides default values. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

  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's purpose with a specific verb ('Obtain') and resource ('project details'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get_organization' or explain how it differs from 'search' for project-related queries.

  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_organization' or 'search'. It mentions default values for optional parameters but doesn't explain scenarios where including team or investor information would be beneficial.

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