Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• send_notificationA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states that a notification is sent and returns a status string. Missing details: whether the tool blocks, rate limits, side effects, or what happens if the ntfy topic is unreachable.

  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 concise: one sentence for purpose, then bullet-like Args and Returns. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action.

  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 the presence of an output schema (implied by context) and 5 parameters, the description covers parameter semantics and return status well. It lacks prerequisites (ntfy configuration) and error handling details, but overall is sufficient for a straightforward notification tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter's meaning. For 'priority' it enumerates valid values and fallback. 'tags' is described as 'emoji shortcodes'. 'click_url' and 'title' are defined. This adds high value beyond the schema's bare names.

  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?

  Description opens with 'Send a push notification to the configured ntfy topic (your phone).' The verb 'Send' and resource 'push notification' with a specific target (ntfy topic) clearly define the action. This distinguishes it from 'send_job_alert' which likely targets a different channel.

  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 the sibling 'send_job_alert'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., ntfy must be configured) or scenarios where alternatives should be considered.

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

• send_job_alertA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is a thin wrapper with fixed defaults (title 'Job sweep', high priority, briefcase tag), and it specifies the return format (status string starting with 'OK:' or 'FAILED:'). No hidden behaviors or contradictions.

  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 very concise, uses bullet-like Args/Returns sections, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (which it describes), the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameter meaning, and return format. No gaps given the tool's simplicity.

  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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds 'summary: The summary text to push to your phone.' While this is basic, it provides meaning beyond the parameter name and type. Could include constraints like max length, but the meaning is clear.

  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 states the tool sends a 'job-search inbox-sweep summary with sensible defaults', identifies it as a thin wrapper around send_notification, and specifies the defaults. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool and leaves no ambiguity.

  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 explicitly says 'Intended for the daily job-inbox-sweep task', providing clear context. It identifies the parent tool (send_notification) but does not explicitly state when not to use it. The guidance is adequate but lacks explicit alternatives.

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