Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• send_messageA
  4.2/5.0
  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 formatting support (Markdown, HTML, plain text) and default parse mode. However, it omits potential behavioral traits like idempotency, error handling, rate limits, or whether the message is sent immediately or queued.

  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 concise (two sentences plus args) and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value without 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?

  Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers usage, formatting, and parameters adequately. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Minor gaps like character limits or error behavior exist, but overall it is complete for typical use.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to both parameters: 'text' is described as message body with Markdown support; 'parse_mode' is explained with options and default. This provides useful context beyond the schema types.

  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 sends a free-form text message to a configured Telegram chat, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like send_notification_with_buttons and wait_for_reply, which have 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 Guidelines4/5

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

  The description explicitly indicates when to use this tool: 'for casual messages, inline code snippets, status updates, or any content that does not require structured formatting.' It implies not to use for notifications with buttons or replies, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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

• send_notificationA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses key behavior: automatic emoji prepending, default emojis by event type, and icon override. No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden; it does a good job describing the tool's operation without contradictions.

  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?

  Concise yet comprehensive. Uses bullet points for default emojis and examples. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition.

  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 4 parameters, no annotations, and presence of output schema, the description covers all necessary behavioral and parameter information. It is fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains each parameter: event (enum values listed), summary (one-line, ≤200 chars), details (multi-line), icon (optional override). Adds meaningful context beyond schema structure.

  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?

  Clearly states the action (send) and resource (structured notification to Telegram chat). Distinguishes from siblings by specifying that it sends a structured notification with automatic emoji prepending, unlike send_message (presumably plain) or send_notification_with_buttons (interactive).

  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?

  Provides examples of when to override icons (deployment, test run, report) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings like send_message or wait_for_reply. Implicit usage is clear but lacks exclusions.

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

• send_notification_with_buttonsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains buttons are suggestions, users can type replies, and gives design guidelines (2-4 buttons, under 30 chars, emoji prefixes). It also notes that button labels become callback payloads.

  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 concise and well-structured: a purpose sentence, bulleted guidelines, and an Args list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

  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 tool has 5 parameters (3 required) and an output schema, the description covers all parameter semantics, workflow integration with wait_for_reply, and button design constraints. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates with an 'Args' section detailing each parameter: event enum, summary length ≤200, buttons list constraints (1-4 items, labels under 30 chars, payload behavior), details and icon optional with descriptions.

  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 sends a structured notification with up to 4 inline action buttons. This distinct purpose differentiates it from siblings like send_notification and send_message.

  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 states to call wait_for_reply after sending, providing clear workflow guidance. It doesn't explicitly exclude sibling tools but the context is clear.

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

• wait_for_replyA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description transparently outlines smart polling intervals and behavior for different elapsed times. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error handling, or authentication requirements, leaving minor 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 well-structured, concise, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, using bullet points and a clear table for parameter guidance.

  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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description is sufficiently complete, covering behavior, parameter selection, and usage context without unnecessary 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 single parameter max_wait_seconds is thoroughly explained with a default, a description of its purpose, and a table of recommended values for various contexts, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

  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 waits for a user reply via Telegram and returns it, distinguishing it from sibling tools that send messages. It specifies handling of both text and callback queries.

  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 provides explicit guidelines for when to use the tool, including a detailed table mapping scenarios to recommended max_wait_seconds values, helping the agent select appropriate parameters.

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