Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• pingB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool performs a health check, but does not explain what it returns, whether it makes network calls, what success/failure looks like, or any side effects. This leaves the agent with incomplete expectations.

  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 extremely concise: 'Health check tool.' It is front-loaded and contains no filler. While it could include a bit more context without harming conciseness, for a zero-parameter tool this brief phrase is appropriately sized 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?

  For a simple health check tool with no parameters, the description provides the essential purpose, but it lacks details about expected output or behavior. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description alone does not tell the agent what a healthy or unhealthy result looks like. It is minimally adequate but not complete.

  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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially fully covered. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and there is nothing the description needs to add about parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter details, but none are required.

  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 states 'Health check tool,' which clearly identifies the tool's function as a health/connectivity check. It is distinct from the sibling tools publish_post and preview_post, which involve different resources. The phrasing is a noun phrase rather than verb+resource, but it is unambiguous.

  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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention contexts such as pre-flight checks, monitoring, or verifying service availability. The sibling tools are clearly different, but no explicit usage direction is provided.

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

• publish_postA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: plain-text conversion, character-based auto-threading for Twitter/X and Threads, and HTML rendering with S3 upload for blog. It does not mention error/auth/rollback behavior, but the main platform-specific behavior is 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?

  The description is compact, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a scannable bullet list for platform-specific details. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

  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?

  For a multi-platform publish tool with an output schema present, the description covers the key transformations and destinations well. The main completeness gap is the absence of any explicit note about previewing alternatives or side effects such as irreversible public posting, though these are partly covered by other dimensions.

  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 the baseline is 3, and the description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining the platform-specific consequences of the platforms parameter (280/500-char thread splitting, S3 upload). The slug and title parameters remain covered by schema 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 opens with a precise verb+resource ('Publish Markdown content to social media and/or a static blog') and then enumerates platform-specific output behaviors, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling preview_post, but the publish-vs-preview distinction is clear from the wording.

  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 given on when to use this tool versus the sibling preview_post, and there are no conditions, exclusions, or caveats about when publishing would be inappropriate. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the word 'publish.'

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

• preview_postA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating the tool is non-publishing and returns formatted text plus thread splits. It could mention whether any changes or side effects occur, but 'without actually publishing' covers the most important behavioral trait.

  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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds only relevant operational details. Every sentence contributes either the scope, return behavior, or when to use 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 an output schema exists (context signal) and full parameter schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, return content, non-publishing nature, and recommended usage. Minor gaps like platform-specific behavior details are covered by the output schema or are unnecessary for correct invocation.

  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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about content being markdown and platforms being selectable, but largely recaps what the schema states. Baseline 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 identifies the tool's job: preview content formatting per platform. It explicitly contrasts with publishing via 'without actually publishing' and is distinct from sibling publish_post, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

  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?

  Direct usage guidance is provided: 'Use this to verify formatting before calling publish_post.' This explicitly names the alternative and the appropriate sequence, telling an agent when to choose this tool rather than publish_post.

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