Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• start_workflowC
  2.9/5.0
  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. It states 'Start the AiDD workflow', implying a mutation or action, but does not describe what starting entails, potential side effects, permissions needed, or response behavior, leaving significant 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 tool's complexity (implied mutation with no annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'starting' the workflow does, what the outcome is, or any behavioral traits, failing to provide sufficient context for effective use.

  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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add parameter details, but this is appropriate given the lack of parameters, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.

  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 'Start the AiDD workflow' states a verb ('Start') and resource ('AiDD workflow'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what the workflow does or how it differs from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'disconnect', making it somewhat vague.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'connect' or 'disconnect'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.

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

• connectB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'browser authentication' which implies user interaction, but doesn't describe what happens during connection (e.g., opens browser window, requires user login, stores session tokens), what permissions are needed, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context for an authentication tool.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter authentication tool and front-loads the essential information.

  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?

  For an authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what successful connection enables, what data is returned (tokens, user info), error handling, or how the connection persists for subsequent tool calls. Given the complexity of authentication flows and the lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more complete context.

  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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema already fully documents this. No additional parameter information is needed or provided.

  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 action ('Connect') and target resource ('AiDD account'), specifying the authentication method ('via browser authentication'). It distinguishes from sibling 'disconnect' by being the opposite operation. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'start_workflow' or 'status' in terms of when to use this specific connection method.

  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 or prerequisites. It doesn't mention whether this should be used for initial setup, re-authentication, or when other tools require authentication. With siblings like 'disconnect', 'start_workflow', and 'status', there's no indication of sequencing or dependencies.

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

• disconnectB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention effects (e.g., session termination, data persistence), authentication changes, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

  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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

  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?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral impact, success/error responses, and context for use with siblings, failing to compensate for the missing structured information.

  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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, meeting the baseline for parameterless tools.

  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 action ('Disconnect') and target resource ('from AiDD account'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'connect' beyond the obvious opposite action, missing explicit comparison.

  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 or prerequisites. The description implies usage after being connected, but doesn't specify conditions, exclusions, or relationships with siblings like 'connect'.

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

• statusB
  3.2/5.0
  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. 'Check authentication status' implies a read-only operation that verifies authentication state, but it doesn't specify what constitutes 'status' (e.g., valid/invalid, token expiration, permissions), whether it requires any authentication itself, what happens on failure, or what format the response takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

  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 'Check authentication status' is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool and is front-loaded with the essential action. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete phrase.

  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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It states what the tool does but doesn't provide enough context about when to use it, what the output looks like, or behavioral characteristics. For a status-checking tool in an authentication context, more guidance about typical usage patterns and expected outcomes would be helpful, though the minimal nature of the tool makes this less critical than for complex operations.

  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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters with high schema coverage is 4, as the description correctly focuses on purpose rather than parameter details.

  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 'Check authentication status' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('authentication status'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' (establish connection) and 'disconnect' (terminate connection) by focusing on verification rather than connection management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'start_workflow' which might involve authentication checks as part of a larger process.

  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. It doesn't indicate whether this should be used before 'connect', after 'disconnect', or as a periodic verification during 'start_workflow'. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical usage patterns, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.

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