Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• cite_affectedA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds context about the SOAP web service and the biennium default, but doesn't describe output format, error behavior, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'List,' so a score of 3 reflects the partial but not comprehensive disclosure.

  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 primary function, and adds only the essential detail about the biennium format and default. Every sentence is purposeful with no 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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers its purpose, the default biennium, and the external service. It lacks explicit detail on return values, but the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema keep the score at 4 rather than lower.

  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 descriptions for both parameters (cite and biennium) with examples and default behavior. The description's mention of biennium format and default adds nothing beyond the schema, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the target resource as 'bills in a biennium that amend or affect a given RCW citation,' clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_section and search. The purpose is immediately evident.

  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 the tool's context (RCW citation, biennium) and provides the default biennium behavior, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or mention exclusions. This is clear context without explicit alternatives, matching a score of 4.

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

• get_sectionA
  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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns full text, includes caption and history/notes, and indicates the data source (app.leg.wa.gov). It does not describe error handling or latency, but for a simple read operation, this is sufficient 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-loaded with the primary action ('Return the full text...'), followed by specifics on included content and the source. There is no redundant or filler information; every sentence contributes meaning.

  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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does, what the return contains, and the data source. It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., plain text vs HTML) or error behavior, but for the tool's simplicity, this is adequate.

  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 describes the 'cite' parameter with examples, and the description also includes an example citation. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter meaning is fully documented. The description adds marginal value by integrating the cite format into the context, but does not go beyond the schema's detail.

  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 the full text of an RCW section by citation, with specific examples like 9A.36.021. It explicitly lists included components (caption, statutory text, history/notes), distinguishing it from sibling tools such as search and cite_affected by focusing on retrieving a known section's full text.

  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 gives clear context: use this when you have a section citation and need the full text. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tool names imply search is for finding sections and cite_affected for affected citations. No exclusions are stated, but the purpose is unambiguous enough 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.

• searchA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description takes on full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals a non-obvious constraint: the tool matches only citations, not keywords, because there is no public full-text API. The example output format ('9A.36.011, 9A.36.021') also sets expectations for what the tool returns.

  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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose is stated first, followed by the critical caveat and a practical next-step instruction. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema details.

  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 search tool with no output schema and only two well-documented parameters, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the tool's scope, its built-in limitation, an example of expected behavior, and how to use its results with get_section. There are no obvious missing behavioral or usage details.

  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 already documents both parameters (query and limit) with clear descriptions, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds extra semantic value by emphasizing that the query must be a citation string, not a keyword, and by illustrating the kind of partial match intended with an example mapping.

  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 opens with 'Find RCW citations matching a partial citation string'—a specific verb and resource—making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it matches citations, not keywords, and by instructing to feed results into get_section.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives clear usage guidance: it tells the agent when to use the tool (partial citation lookup) and, critically, when not to use it ('free-text words like "assault" return no results'). It also provides a follow-up action ('Feed results into get_section'), which is helpful for correct tool selection and chaining.

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