Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• qrchat_read_messagesB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions returning the API notice verbatim, but it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only (no mutation), nor does it explain what the notice is or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by the name but not stated.

  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, concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. It includes necessary scope ('this agent's QRChat room') and a key behavior ('verbatim') without extraneous words.

  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?

  The tool has three optional parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema. The description does not explain the parameters, return format, or any behavioral details beyond a vague 'API notice.' Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for complete understanding.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (wait, limit, since_id). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use these parameters.

  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 function: reading messages from the agent's QRChat room and returning the API notice verbatim. It uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('messages'), distinguishing it from siblings like qrchat_send_message and qrchat_room_info.

  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 through the verb 'read' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternative conditions, relying on the reader to infer from the tool name and sibling names.

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

• qrchat_send_messageB
  3.3/5.0
  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 one concrete behavioral trait: 'one timeout retry reuses the generated UUID,' which hints at idempotency. However, it does not disclose other relevant aspects such as auth requirements, whether the operation is a write/mutation, or any side effects beyond posting a message.

  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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and a key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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, output schema, and schema descriptions, the description should compensate by explaining parameters, usage context, and potential outcomes. It only covers the purpose and one retry detail, leaving the tool incompletely documented for an agent to invoke correctly in all scenarios.

  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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (type, message, reply_to_id). It provides zero guidance on what values are expected or how they affect the call, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema alone, which is insufficient.

  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 states the specific action ('Post to this agent's QRChat room'), clearly identifying the resource and distinguishing it from sibling tools like qrchat_room_info and qrchat_read_messages. The verb 'Post' is unambiguous in this context.

  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 usage context is implied: an agent would use this tool when it needs to send a message to the QRChat room. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives. The purpose effectively conveys when to use, but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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

• qrchat_room_infoA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the diagnostic nature ('Check connectivity') and specifies the return values, giving a clear picture of behavior. It doesn't mention potential side effects or authentication, but the tool's simplicity and read-only nature are reasonably inferred.

  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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and expected output with no filler or redundancy.

  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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and return data sufficiently. It lacks explicit usage guidance or error handling, but these are not critical 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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds meaning by indicating what the tool returns, which is useful given the absence of an output schema. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets it.

  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 the specific verbs 'check' and 'return' with the resource 'room info' and explicitly states the returned data (code/title, agent name). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools qrchat_read_messages and qrchat_send_message, which handle message operations.

  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 this tool is for room-level connectivity and metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over the sibling messaging tools or provide any exclusion conditions or alternatives.

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