Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• getStarHoppingPathC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions the calculation process and FOV constraint, but lacks details on what the output looks like (e.g., path format, error handling), computational requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

  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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds a key constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does but not what it returns, how errors are handled, or practical considerations for use. Without annotations or output schema, users lack critical context about the tool's behavior and results.

  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 input schema fully documents all 5 parameters with clear descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how FOV interacts with hop selection) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: calculating a star hopping path from a bright start star to a target celestial object, with hops constrained by Field of View. It specifies the verb ('calculates'), resource ('star hopping path'), and key constraint ('within the specified Field of View'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCelestialDetails' or 'listCelestialObjects', which likely provide different astronomical data rather than navigation paths.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or other contexts where star hopping might be preferred over direct object lookup. Usage is implied (e.g., for astronomical navigation when equipment FOV is limited), but no explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites are stated.

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

• listCelestialObjectsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that objects are 'grouped by category' and can be filtered, but doesn't describe output format, pagination, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise with three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, functionality, and utility. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Lists available celestial objects') and avoids redundancy. However, the last sentence ('This tool helps in discovering...') could be considered slightly verbose, as it restates the purpose rather than adding new information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and filtering, but lacks details on output structure, error cases, or integration with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would improve completeness for agent use.

  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% description coverage, fully documenting the single optional parameter 'category' with valid values and default behavior. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying filtering capability without providing additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

  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's purpose: 'Lists available celestial objects that can be queried by other tools' and 'Objects are grouped by category.' It specifies the verb (lists) and resource (celestial objects) with additional context about grouping. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getCelestialDetails or getStarHoppingPath, which prevents a perfect score.

  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 'This tool helps in discovering what objects are known to the system' and mentions filtering by category, suggesting it's for discovery purposes. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getCelestialDetails (which likely provides detailed info) or getStarHoppingPath (which might involve navigation). No exclusions or clear alternatives are named.

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

• getCelestialDetailsA
  4.1/5.0
  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 describes key behaviors: automatic name resolution, pre-configured observer location and current time calculations, and the types of information returned. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like accuracy constraints, failure modes for unresolvable names, or performance characteristics.

  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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and comprehensive information returned, the second explains behavioral aspects like automatic resolution and calculation settings. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  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 does a reasonable job covering the tool's purpose, behavior, and parameter context. However, it doesn't describe the format or structure of returned information, which would be important for an agent to process the results effectively.

  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?

  With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the tool's automatic name resolution capability ('resolves common names') and providing broader context about what types of celestial objects are supported, which complements the schema's examples.

  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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('detailed astronomical information for a specified celestial object'), with specific examples of object types (planet, star, Messier object) and information returned (coordinates, visibility, times, distance, phases). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on detailed information retrieval rather than pathfinding or listing.

  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 context for when to use this tool: to get detailed astronomical information for a specific celestial object. It mentions automatic name resolution and pre-configured observer/time settings, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., use listCelestialObjects for browsing).

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