Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• add_activityA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 adds useful context about the day range ('must be between 1 and the trip's length') and the purpose of the details field, but it does not mention error handling, side effects, idempotency, or what the response contains. This is partial transparency, not comprehensive.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by essential parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it concise and well-structured.

  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 simple add operation with four parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the key day validation rule, and the details field's intended use. It doesn't address potential errors or return behavior, but these are partially covered by the output schema and the simplicity of the tool. Overall, it is sufficient but not exhaustive.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains the 'day' parameter (range constraint) and 'details' (content guidance), adding value beyond the plain schema titles. The other parameters (trip_id, title) are self-explanatory and not explicitly described, but the description still covers the non-obvious ones.

  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 verb and resource: 'Add one activity to a specific day of the trip.' This is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings get_itinerary (retrieval) and remove_activity (deletion), which serve different purposes.

  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 by stating the action and location ('to a specific day of the trip') and provides constraints on the day parameter. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving differentiation to inference from the verb and sibling names.

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

• remove_activityA
  4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the removal is permanent, whether special permissions are required, or what happens if the id does not exist. The only extra behavior is the pointer to get_itinerary for finding ids, which is more about parameter retrieval than tool 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 two concise sentences: the first clearly states the action, and the second adds a useful pointer. No superfluous words or repetition of schema details.

  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, the presence of an output schema, and the description covering the core action and id provenance, the description is largely complete. It omits mention of permanence or error handling, but these are not critical given the straightforward nature of the operation.

  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?

  Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning to the activity_id parameter by explaining that ids are shown in square brackets by get_itinerary. This directly tells the agent where to obtain a valid value, compensating for the missing schema description.

  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's purpose with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('activity') and an explicit method ('by its id'). It distinguishes from siblings by indicating removal versus get_itinerary (listing) and add_activity (creation).

  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 provides clear workflow context by telling the agent that ids are found in square brackets via get_itinerary. This implies the prerequisite action and when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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

• get_itineraryA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The explicit 'Read' verb signals a non-mutating operation, and the description clearly states what content is returned. It lacks mention of edge cases or prerequisites, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient.

  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, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by a concise summary of what is returned. No wasted words.

  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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential usage ('Call this first') and return contents. No further detail is needed given the tool's simplicity and available structured data.

  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?

  The schema has a single parameter (trip_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description only implies a trip context without explicitly naming or explaining the parameter. Since schema coverage is low, the description should have compensated by mentioning trip_id or its role, but it does not.

  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 reads the current itinerary for a trip and details its contents (place, days, activities grouped by day). The verb 'read' and resource 'itinerary' distinguish it from sibling mutation tools.

  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 instruction 'Call this first' provides explicit usage context, positioning this read tool as a preliminary step before modifications. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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