Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• a2a_agent_infoC
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably returns agent data.

  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 states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what information is returned about agents, the format of the response, or any behavioral context needed for proper tool invocation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves too many unanswered questions.

  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 schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('information about the connected A2A agents'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (which handle tasks rather than agent information), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  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 mention prerequisites, context for usage, or relationships with sibling tools like a2a_get_task, leaving the agent with no usage framework.

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

• a2a_cancel_taskC
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool cancels tasks but doesn't describe what cancellation entails (e.g., irreversible, partial rollback, status changes), permission requirements, side effects, or error conditions. This leaves 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 waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose 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 traits, error handling, return values, and how it differs from sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context 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%, with both parameters (taskId and agentId) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it 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 action ('cancel') and target ('a running task'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like a2a_get_task or a2a_send_task, which prevents a perfect score.

  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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It mentions 'running task' but doesn't clarify what constitutes a running task or when cancellation is appropriate versus other operations.

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

• a2a_get_taskC
  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 tool retrieves state but does not cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), error handling (e.g., invalid IDs), rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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 is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, and every word earns its place without redundancy.

  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. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, errors), output format, and usage context. For a tool with two required parameters and no structured support, this minimal description leaves the agent under-informed.

  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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (taskId and agentId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining why both IDs are required or their relationship. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 'Get the current state of a task' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('task'), specifying it retrieves the 'current state' rather than just the task itself. It distinguishes from siblings like a2a_send_task (creation) and a2a_cancel_task (modification), but does not explicitly differentiate from a2a_agent_info, which might also retrieve task-related info indirectly.

  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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid taskId and agentId), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like a2a_send_task_subscribe for real-time updates, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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

• a2a_send_taskC
  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 'Send a task' but doesn't explain what happens after sending (e.g., does it wait for a response, is it asynchronous, what permissions are needed, or any rate limits). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a task-sending 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's purpose 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?

  Given the complexity of sending tasks to agents, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like response handling, error conditions, or interaction with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.

  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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (message, taskId, agentId) with their types and optionality. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it 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 action ('Send') and resource ('a task to an A2A agent'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'a2a_send_task_subscribe', which appears to be a similar send operation with subscription functionality, so it misses full sibling distinction.

  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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to siblings like 'a2a_send_task_subscribe' or 'a2a_cancel_task', leaving usage context unclear.

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

• a2a_send_task_subscribeC
  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. It mentions 'streaming' and 'subscribe to updates', hinting at real-time behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'updates' entail (e.g., format, frequency). For a mutation tool with streaming, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

  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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place, avoiding redundancy and waste, making it efficient for quick understanding.

  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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, update formats, error conditions, or operational constraints, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke it correctly in context.

  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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or use cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

  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 ('send a task and subscribe to updates') and resource ('task'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'a2a_send_task', which likely sends a task without subscribing, leaving some ambiguity about sibling distinction.

  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, such as 'a2a_send_task' for non-streaming tasks or 'a2a_get_task' for retrieving task status. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage, relying solely on the tool name for implicit understanding.

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