Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate_progress_reportA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does: returns a draft by default, requires save: true to persist, and requires ANTHROPIC_API_KEY. It clearly discloses the side effect of saving, which is strong disclosure for a tool with no annotations.

  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?

  Two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and then detail the save behavior and API key requirement. No fluff or unnecessary words.

  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 tool with a simple schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: purpose, default behavior, save option, and API key dependency. It could mention the output format but that is not required without an output schema.

  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 covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 tool generates a parent-friendly progress summary by reasoning over session notes and homework. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_student_progress (summary vs raw data) but does not explicitly name the alternative, so a 4 is appropriate.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_student_progress. The description implies it is for summaries but does not contrast with alternatives or state prerequisites beyond the API key, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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

• get_student_progressA
  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. The verb 'get' implies a read-only operation and the returned data is named, which is honest and non-contradictory. But it does not define what 'recent' or 'open' mean, describe the return shape, or note behavior on an invalid/unknown student_id. Adequate but thin for an operation with zero 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?

  Two sentences, zero filler. The purpose sentence is front-loaded with verb, resource, and key; the second sentence adds the prerequisite. Every word earns its place.

  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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it names what is returned, the required input, and the prerequisite. Minor gaps remain — no return-structure description (which a simple tool can tolerate) and no definition of 'recent'/'open' timeframes — but nothing critical blocks correct 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 coverage is 100% — the schema already documents student_id as 'The student's id, from list_students', including its source. The description's 'by student id' and 'Use list_students first' only reinforce what the schema already states, adding no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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?

  States a specific verb ('Get') plus a concrete resource ('a student's recent session notes and open homework') keyed by student id. The scope is unambiguous and easily distinguished from siblings: it retrieves existing data, unlike log_session_note and assign_homework (writes) and generate_progress_report (report generation).

  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?

  Explicitly routes the agent to the prerequisite: 'Use list_students first if you don't know the id.' This gives clear context for calling the tool correctly. It does not, however, mention when to prefer generate_progress_report or log_session_note instead, so some alternative routing is left to inference.

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

• assign_homeworkA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the critical default side-effect (preview only, no save) and the practical workflow of 'call again with confirm: true', deliberately preventing accidental writes. It omits details like reversibility, permissions, or preview output content, but the core safety behavior is well covered.

  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 three concise sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, behavioral/workflow warning, and prerequisite.

  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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: action, default side-effect (preview), confirmation requirement, and prerequisite. The only major gap is the content or format of the preview response, which is not specified, but for a straightforward create-with-preview tool the coverage is nearly complete.

  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 baseline is 3. The tool description restates the confirm workflow and the list_students dependency, both of which are already present in the schema's parameter descriptions, so it adds little meaning beyond what the structured schema already conveys.

  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 first sentence uses a specific verb ('assign'), concrete resources ('homework item', 'student'), and is clearly distinct from list_students, get_student_progress, log_session_note, and generate_progress_report. It names the exact operation and target, leaving 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?

  The description provides an explicit precondition: 'Use list_students first if you don't know the student_id.' It also communicates the intended two-step preview-and-confirm flow. It lacks explicit exclusion language for sibling tools, but the purpose differentiation makes those exclusions unnecessary.

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

• list_studentsA
  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 full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly implies a read-only operation (listing) and describes the filter behavior. It does not mention any side effects or return format, but for a simple list tool this is largely implicit. No contradictions exist.

  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 with zero redundancy. The core purpose is stated first, followed by the filter option. Every word earns its place, 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.

  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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It might benefit from noting the return format (e.g., an array of students), but that is easily inferred from the purpose. Minor gaps like ordering or pagination are not critical for this straightforward tool.

  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 already provides 100% coverage for the single optional parameter, describing it as matching against student name or subject_focus. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond restating that the search matches name or subject. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 (List), the resource (students), and the included details (grade and subject focus). It also mentions the optional filter. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_student_progress or assign_homework, which are clearly not listing 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?

  The description explains when to use the optional filter (search term) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. However, the sibling names are distinct enough that an agent can infer list_students is for enumerating students, making the usage context clear even without explicit exclusions.

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

• log_session_noteA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 clearly discloses that the tool only previews by default and requires a second call with confirm: true to actually save, which is a critical behavioral trait. It doesn't describe the preview's return format, but the core behavior is transparent.

  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?

  Two sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the essential preview/confirm behavior, then the prerequisite hint. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral nuance (preview vs save) and the prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds the hint about using list_students for student_id, which is beyond the schema. However, the confirm and session_date details are already in the schema, so the description adds only marginal value.

  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?

  States a specific verb 'Log' and resource 'a note for a tutoring session', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_students or assign_homework. The preview/confirm behavior is mentioned up front, making the tool's function unambiguous.

  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?

  Explicitly instructs to use list_students first if student_id is unknown, providing a clear prerequisite and routing to a sibling. Doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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