Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• cid10_statsB
  3.4/5.0
  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 only says 'returns general statistics' but does not specify what the statistics include, whether the operation is read-only, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal disclosure.

  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 a single sentence, concise and to the point. It is appropriately sized for a simple parameterless tool, though it could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.

  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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks specificity. It does not explain what 'general statistics' are, leaving room for ambiguity. The sibling tools contextualize it partially, but the description itself is incomplete.

  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 has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but since there are none, it cannot add more. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not detract.

  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 'Retorna estatísticas gerais' (returns general statistics) with the specific resource 'base de dados CID-10 brasileira'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the purpose is distinct from siblings like 'cid10_search' or 'cid10_lookup'.

  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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'cid10_capitulos' or 'cid10_hierarchy'. The usage context is implied (when general stats are needed), but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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

• cid10_lookupA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what is returned but does not mention side effects, read-only nature, authentication requirements, or any constraints. The description is minimally 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, no extraneous words. Purpose is front-loaded, and details are appropriately listed. Every sentence is informative.

  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?

  No output schema exists, so the description compensates by listing what information is returned. Given the tool's simplicity and the sibling tools, the description is fairly complete, though it could mention that the lookup is read-only.

  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% with description for the single parameter. The tool description reinforces the format but does not add meaningfully new semantic information beyond the schema. 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?

  Description clearly states it consults details of a specific CID-10 code and lists the type of information returned (description, sex restrictions, cause of death, cross/asterisk). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cid10_search and cid10_validar by focusing on a single code lookup.

  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?

  Description implies usage when you have a specific CID-10 code, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cid10_search or cid10_hierarchy. No exclusion criteria or contextual guidance provided.

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

• cid10_searchA
  3.6/5.0
  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 discloses the search operation and input types, but does not mention behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, return format, or pagination behavior. For a read-only search, this is marginally adequate.

  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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no wasted words. Each sentence adds useful context: action, source, input types, examples.

  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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential functionality and input types. It lacks differentiation from sibling tools and details on return format, but is sufficient for a basic search 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples for the query parameter but does not significantly extend meaning beyond the schema definitions for limit or offset.

  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 it searches CID-10 codes by term (code or description) using the Brazilian DATASYS table, with examples. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like cid10_lookup, but the purpose is specific and actionable.

  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?

  It provides usage context (Brazilian table, accepts partial codes and terms) and examples, but does not guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like cid10_validar or cid10_lookup.

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

• cid10_validarA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool validates existence and returns validity info, suggesting read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Basic transparency is provided.

  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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core functionality and context without redundant or extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose.

  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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides essential information but lacks detail on the exact return format or fields. Mentioning specific health systems adds context, but completeness could be improved.

  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 has 100% coverage with a description for the 'codigo' parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format, constraints). 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 clearly states the tool validates a CID-10 code and returns validity information for use in specific health systems. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cid10_search (search) and cid10_lookup (details), which serve different purposes.

  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 for validating CID-10 codes and mentions target systems (AIH, APAC, SIM), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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

• cid10_hierarchyA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns all codes under a prefix but does not describe the return format (e.g., list of full codes with descriptions), side effects, or authentication requirements. This leaves the agent with incomplete behavioral understanding.

  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 core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

  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?

  The tool has one parameter (100% schema coverage) and no output schema. The description explains what it does and gives an example, but it does not describe the return structure (e.g., list of strings, objects with descriptions). This omission limits completeness for an agent invoking the 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?

  The schema describes the 'prefixo' parameter with examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds an example of usage ('prefixo E11 retorna todos os tipos de diabetes mellitus tipo 2'), providing context beyond the schema definition.

  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 retrieves all CID-10 codes under a category/prefix, with a specific verb 'Retorna' and resource 'códigos CID-10'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cid10_search (search) and cid10_lookup (single code lookup).

  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 a clear usage context ('Útil para obter todas as subcategorias de uma condição') and an example with prefix 'E11'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative sibling tools.

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

• cid10_capitulosA
  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 full burden. It discloses that the tool lists chapters and is useful for navigation, but does not explicitly state behavioral traits like read-only, caching, or rate limits. However, for a simple list tool with no side effects, this is acceptable.

  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 concise sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second provides the use case. Every word 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?

  Given zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple listing function, the description fully covers what the tool does and its purpose. No additional details are necessary.

  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?

  There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 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 it lists all 22 chapters of the Brazilian CID-10, specifying the verb 'list', the resource 'chapters', and the context 'CID-10 brasileira'. It distinguishes from siblings like cid10_search or cid10_hierarchy by focusing on top-level chapters.

  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 says it is 'útil para navegação e entendimento da estrutura hierárquica', implying it should be used for navigation and understanding the hierarchy. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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