Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_leave_balanceC
  2.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as whether authentication is required, what happens if the employee is not found, or if the balance is real-time. It only states it 'gets' balance, implying a read operation, but no further context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  While the description is short, it is under-specified, lacking details that would justify its brevity. Not a model of concise completeness.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  Given the lack of annotations, missing parameter descriptions, and the existence of a sibling tool (get_leave_history) that overlaps in domain, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool. The output schema is present but not leveraged.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  The single parameter 'emp_name' has no schema description (0% coverage) and the description does not clarify its format (e.g., full name, email, or ID). No additional meaning is added beyond the schema.

  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 ('Get') and the resource ('available leave balance for an employee'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_leave_history' which retrieves history, not balance.

  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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_leave_history), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

• apply_leaveC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states the action. It does not explain side effects, idempotency, or any required conditions (e.g., employee must exist).

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too sparse to be fully effective; a bit more detail would improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

  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 the presence of three required parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. The agent lacks information about return values, errors, and behavioral context.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema field names. It does not explain the 'days' or 'reason' parameters, nor does it clarify the role of 'emp_name' beyond what the schema provides.

  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 action ('apply leave') and the target ('for an employee'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_leave, get_leave_balance, etc.

  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 such as cancel_leave or get_leave_balance. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or selection criteria.

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

• get_leave_historyB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description indicates a read operation but fails to disclose details like permissions, data scope, or potential limits.

  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?

  One short sentence with no extraneous words; the verb is first.

  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?

  While the output schema likely covers return details, the description lacks context about what 'leave application history' entails (e.g., date range, statuses).

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only implicitly refers to the parameter without adding format or constraint details.

  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 action (get) and the resource (leave application history), making it distinct from siblings like get_leave_balance or apply_leave.

  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 usage guidance is provided; the description does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_leave_balance or list_employees.

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

• cancel_leaveA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses the side effect of restoring balance, which is important behavioral insight. However, it does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., leave status) or potential failure modes.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is very concise at 9 words, front-loading the essential action and effect. No unnecessary verbosity.

  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 simple 2-parameter cancel operation, the description covers purpose and side effect but omits return value information despite an output schema existing.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. It does not explain what emp_name or leave_id represent or their acceptable formats.

  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 action (cancel) and resource (leave) with a specific outcome (restore balance). It distinguishes from siblings like apply_leave and get_leave_balance.

  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 usage for previously applied leaves but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria, nor references to alternatives.

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

• list_employeesA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states it lists employee names, implying a read operation, but omits details like permission requirements, pagination behavior, or whether the list is exhaustive. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's 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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

  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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, likely straightforward output), the description is mostly complete. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. However, it could mention that it returns a list or provide a usage hint, but overall it's adequate for an experienced agent.

  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?

  Since there are zero parameters, schema description coverage is 100%, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters, and it doesn't, which is appropriate. No additional meaning is required.

  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 ('list') and resource ('employee names'), clearly stating the tool's action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_employee' or 'apply_leave' which involve mutations or leave management, leaving no ambiguity about this read-only lookup.

  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 on when or when not to use this tool. The description does not mention context, alternatives, or prerequisites. For example, it doesn't state that this tool should be used before adding an employee or checking leave balances. Without such cues, an agent may misuse it.

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

• add_employeeA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Discloses default values for balance and history, which is helpful for understanding initialization. However, does not mention uniqueness constraints on employee_name or return behavior, and there are no annotations to rely on.

  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?

  Single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition.

  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 simplicity of the tool (1 param, output schema exists), the description covers essential aspects: action, defaults, and resource. Could be enhanced by mentioning return value or uniqueness, but adequate overall.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no additional semantics for the lone parameter 'employee_name' beyond the schema's type declaration. For a tool with zero coverage, more detail (e.g., format, uniqueness) is needed.

  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?

  Clearly states the action 'add' and the resource 'employee', with specific defaults (balance 10, history []). Distinct from siblings which focus on leave operations.

  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?

  Usage is clear from context: this tool adds an employee while siblings handle leave-related actions. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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