Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• execute_workflowC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'streaming support', which hints at real-time output or progressive processing, but fails to detail critical aspects such as permissions needed, whether execution is destructive or idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs operations.

  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 waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes a key feature (streaming support), making it appropriately sized and easy to parse quickly.

  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 complexity of executing workflows (likely involving processing and mutations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, return values, and how it differs from siblings. This leaves the agent under-informed for safe and effective 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 all three parameters (workflow_name, input_data, streaming). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'streaming' is a feature, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

  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 'Execute a workflow with streaming support' states the action (execute) and resource (workflow), but is vague about what 'execute' entails (e.g., run, trigger, process) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'create_agent' or 'start_streaming_chat'. It mentions streaming support, which adds some specificity but lacks detail on the workflow's nature or scope.

  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. The description implies streaming is optional, but it doesn't specify scenarios for using streaming versus non-streaming, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'create_streaming_workflow' or 'start_streaming_chat' for context. This leaves 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.

• start_streaming_chatC
  2.7/5.0
  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 mentions 'streaming' but doesn't explain what that means operationally (e.g., real-time responses, event-driven flow, or connection handling). It also lacks details on permissions, rate limits, session management, or what 'start' implies (e.g., does it return a session ID?). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves ongoing interaction.

  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 extremely concise with just four words: 'Start a streaming chat session'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information. This efficiency is appropriate given the tool's straightforward name.

  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 complexity of a streaming chat tool (likely involving real-time interaction and session management), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like how streaming works, what the output looks like, error handling, or session lifecycle. This leaves the agent under-informed for effective tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (agent_name, message, streaming) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact (e.g., whether 'streaming' overrides agent settings) or providing usage examples. 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.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Start a streaming chat session' clearly states the action (start) and resource (streaming chat session), but it's somewhat vague about what 'streaming chat' entails compared to regular chat. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_streaming_workflow' or 'execute_workflow', leaving ambiguity about when to use this versus those alternatives.

  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 sibling tools like 'create_agent', 'create_streaming_workflow', or 'execute_workflow'. There's no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or specific contexts where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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

• create_agentC
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Create') but doesn't describe what happens after creation (e.g., whether the agent is immediately active, stored, or requires further steps), error conditions, or side effects. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information concisely.

  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 complexity of creating an agent (a mutation operation with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what the tool returns, error handling, or how the created agent integrates with other tools (e.g., 'start_streaming_chat'). For a creation tool, more context is needed to guide effective 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 all 4 parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the significance of 'type' or how 'llm_config' should be structured. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

  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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new AutoGen agent'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_streaming_workflow' by specifying the resource type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

  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 'create_streaming_workflow' or 'execute_workflow'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit context or exclusions provided.

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

• create_streaming_workflowC
  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 carries full burden. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether the workflow is immediately active, error handling, or rate limits. The mention of 'real-time streaming' hints at ongoing behavior but lacks specifics.

  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 with the core purpose ('Create a workflow') and adds a distinguishing feature ('with real-time streaming') concisely.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that creates workflows with streaming. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, error conditions, or the implications of 'real-time streaming' in practice. For a mutation tool with multiple parameters, more context is needed.

  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 additional meaning beyond implying that 'streaming' is a key feature, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions, defaults, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

  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 ('Create') and resource ('workflow') with a distinguishing feature ('with real-time streaming'). It differentiates from siblings like 'create_agent' and 'execute_workflow' by focusing on workflow creation with streaming capabilities, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'start_streaming_chat'.

  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 'create_agent' or 'execute_workflow'. It mentions 'real-time streaming' but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual scenarios for choosing this tool over others.

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