Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate_supervision_checklistB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool 'generates' a checklist, without revealing whether this operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, whether it requires any prerequisites, or what the checklist contents depend on beyond the two parameters.

  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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

  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 tool with only two simple enum parameters, the description is mostly adequate, but it does not address output format, behavioral side effects, or selection guidance among siblings. Since there is no output schema and the interaction with get_stage_guidance is unclear, the description leaves some practical usage context missing.

  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%, and both parameters have enum descriptions that fully explain their meaning. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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?

  The description clearly states a specific verb ('Generates') and a specific resource ('supervision checklist for a construction stage'), and it also narrows the scope with 'at a specific moment (before, during, or after).' It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_stage_guidance, which might overlap in purpose since both could provide stage-related information.

  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 when to use the tool: whenever a supervision checklist for a construction stage is needed at a particular moment. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like get_stage_guidance or get_next_possible_stages.

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

• analyze_quotationA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses what the tool detects (missing items, duplicates, out-of-range prices), which implies read-only analytical behavior, but it does not explain return format, error behavior, or assumptions about reference concepts.

  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, information-dense sentence with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded and the detection outcomes follow immediately, making it easy to scan and 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?

  Inputs are fully covered by the schema and the tool's conceptual scope is clear. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description omits the result structure and any caveats about how reference concepts or ranges are determined, leaving a moderate completeness 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond framing the overall analysis, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb 'Analyzes' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a material or labor quotation against reference concepts.' It further specifies concrete detection targets (missing items, duplicates, out-of-range prices), which distinguishes it unambiguously from the sibling tools about stages, checklists, and progress.

  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 makes the tool's context clear: use it when a quotation needs analysis. Since none of the sibling tools perform quotation analysis, selection is unambiguous. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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

• get_next_possible_stagesA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Reviews' and 'identifies' imply a non-mutating analysis, but the description never explicitly states that it makes no changes to project progress, nor does it mention what it returns (e.g., a list of stage identifiers) or edge cases. It adds the prerequisite-dependency rule, but not enough to be fully 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 entire description is a single 18-word sentence that front-loads the action ('Reviews stored project progress') before the outcome. Every word contributes; there is no filler, redundant context, or repetition of the tool name.

  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 one-parameter read-style tool, the description covers the essential purpose and prerequisite logic. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the return format unspecified and doesn't mention empty results or invalid project_id behavior, so it's not fully complete.

  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 input schema already provides full documentation for project_id (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description only connects project_id to 'stored project progress' without adding format, validation, or relationship details, so it does not elevate the score.

  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 begins with a specific verb ('Reviews') and resource ('stored project progress'), then states the precise outcome ('identifies which stages can be started next based on prerequisite dependencies'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like record_project_progress (a write operation) and get_stage_guidance (guidance, not planning).

  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?

  It communicates the trigger condition: when you need to know which stages are available next given stored progress and prerequisite dependencies. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over the write-oriented record_project_progress.

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

• get_stage_guidanceA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 clearly states what the tool returns—description, prerequisites, materials, activities, supervision points, common mistakes, and safety notes—which gives a strong sense of behavior. It does not discuss error cases or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, but the "Returns" framing and tool name are sufficient for this simple read operation.

  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, well-structured sentence. It fronts the primary purpose and then provides a clear list of content categories without unnecessary words or redundancy.

  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 tool with two required enum parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough detail about the return content to guide correct invocation. It does not mention how project_type might affect the guidance or how invalid combinations are handled, but that is a minor gap for a read-only guidance tool.

  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%, and both parameters have enum definitions with basic descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning about how stage_id or project_type interact with the returned guidance, so the schema carries the parameter semantic burden.

  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 uses a specific verb, 'Returns', and clearly identifies the resource as 'detailed guidance for a construction stage'. It enumerates the types of content returned, which distinguishes it from siblings like generate_supervision_checklist and get_next_possible_stages.

  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 when to use the tool: when an agent needs detailed guidance about a construction stage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as generate_supervision_checklist or get_next_possible_stages.

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

• record_project_progressA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description itself must disclose behavior. It does disclose the persistence side effect in SQLite and implies an upsert-like behavior with 'Records or updates'. However, it does not clarify whether existing records are overwritten, what validations apply, or what the tool returns after a write, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

  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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the persistence fact is the only extra detail included. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 low-complexity tool with a fully documented schema, the description provides the essential persistence context and scope. The main gaps are the lack of explicit create-vs-update semantics and no mention of return values, but these are minor given the schema coverage and simple operation.

  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 parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning; it only references 'progress' and 'one stage,' which maps to the schema but provides no additional detail beyond it.

  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 uses the specific verbs 'Records or updates' and identifies the exact resource: progress for one stage of a construction project. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stage_guidance or analyze_quotation. The additional note 'Persists data in SQLite' reinforces that this is a write operation, making the 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 Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: when a single stage's progress must be recorded or updated and persisted. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are obviously different in scope, so an agent can infer the right choice without confusion.

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