Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_lowest_performing_coursesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses sort order and business intent, but omits details about output format, error handling (e.g., invalid account_id), or response structure. Although there is an output schema, its existence is not mentioned, and the description does not elaborate on what fields are returned.

  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 consists of two tightly written sentences. The first delivers the core functionality, the second adds usage context. No redundant or extraneous information is present.

  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 retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and behavioral sort order. It does not describe output structure, but that is acceptable since the output schema exists and the description need not repeat it. Minor gap: no mention of limit default (though present in 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear schema description. The tool description adds business context but no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

  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 returns lowest-completion courses for a client sorted ascending by completion rate. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_client_health and get_launcher_clients by focusing on renewal risk through course completion data.

  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 explicitly suggests using this tool to surface renewal risk, providing a clear business context. While it does not compare with siblings or mention when not to use, the guidance is specific and actionable.

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

• get_client_healthA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 explains the tool returns a health snapshot modeled on a specific report and lists included fields. However, it does not disclose potential behavior like error handling, performance constraints, or whether it is a read-only operation, leaving some gaps.

  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 purpose and usage. Every word adds value, with no redundant or irrelevant information.

  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?

  Given the low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

  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% coverage for the single parameter, with a clear description including example and case-insensitivity. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 tool returns a 'full learning-engagement health snapshot' for a single client account, listing specific data points like per-course completion rates, average scores, content freshness, delivery method, and contract renewal date. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_launcher_clients and get_lowest_performing_courses.

  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 explicitly says 'Use this when someone asks how a specific client is doing, wants a health check before a renewal, or needs an overview of a client's engagement.' This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use or alternatives.

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

• get_launcher_clientsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool returns all such clients, implying a read operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose behavioral details such as performance implications, ordering, or error conditions. The description adds context but lacks deeper behavioral transparency.

  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-loading the purpose. It is efficient with no extraneous words, providing maximum information in minimal space.

  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?

  Given no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the necessary context: what is returned (launcher clients), why it matters (proactive monitoring), and how to use it (identify accounts needing engagement monitoring). It is fully complete for this simple tool.

  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?

  Input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining the concept of 'launcher clients' and the importance of monitoring, which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, but the added context justifies a 4.

  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 returns 'all clients delivered via Content Controller Launcher (i.e. clients with NO LMS of their own)'. This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools (get_client_health, get_lowest_performing_courses) by focusing on a different subset and use case.

  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 explicitly says 'Use this to identify which accounts need CMR-side engagement monitoring', providing a clear use case. It also explains the context of proactive monitoring. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to siblings explicitly.

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