Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• 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 mentions the tool 'gives a prompt text' but does not explain what happens next—e.g., whether it returns a prompt for AI processing, requires additional steps, or has any side effects like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.

  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 concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and input. It avoids unnecessary details and is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating usage guidelines or behavioral context.

  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?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the prompt text format or any output structure), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like error handling or prerequisites. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

  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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'template.' It restates that the tool 'accepts a JSON template with placeholders,' mirroring the schema's description. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

  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 'gives a prompt text for AI to group text based on JSON placeholders,' which provides a vague purpose. It mentions the action ('gives a prompt text') and resource ('JSON placeholders'), but lacks specificity about what 'group text' means or how the prompt is used. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tool 'text-to-json,' leaving ambiguity in its exact function.

  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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling tool 'text-to-json' or provide context for choosing between them. Without explicit usage instructions or exclusions, users must infer when this tool is appropriate, leading to potential misuse.

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

• 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 describes the conversion process but lacks details on error handling, output format, or any constraints (e.g., template syntax, validation rules). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic operation.

  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 concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and inputs. It avoids unnecessary words and is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the repetition of 'group-text-by-json tool' could be slightly streamlined, and it lacks structural elements like bullet points for clarity.

  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 complexity (data transformation with two parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic operation but misses details on output format, error cases, or example usage. While it mentions the sibling tool, more context on the overall workflow would improve completeness for effective agent use.

  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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('template' and 'text') with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value by repeating that it accepts a 'JSON template with placeholders' and 'groupped text from groupTextByJson tool', but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema states. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 tool's purpose: converting grouped text to JSON using a template. It specifies the verb 'converts' and the resource 'groupped text from group-text-by-json tool', making the action and input source explicit. However, it doesn't fully distinguish from its sibling 'group-text-by-json' beyond mentioning it as the source, missing an opportunity to clarify the workflow relationship more distinctly.

  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 implies usage by specifying that it accepts input from 'group-text-by-json tool', suggesting a sequential workflow. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., direct JSON creation tools) or any prerequisites beyond having the grouped text. No exclusions or clear when-not-to-use scenarios are provided.

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