Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ctrltest.analyze_pidC
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what the tool returns ('key control metrics plus provenance'), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like computational requirements, accuracy limitations, whether it's a simulation or real-time analysis, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The description is insufficient for a complex control analysis tool.

  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 reasonably concise with two sentences plus an example. The first sentence states the purpose and required inputs, the second describes the output, and the example provides concrete illustration. However, the example could be more focused on illustrating the structure rather than specific values.

  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 complex parameter structure (1 top-level parameter with 10 nested properties across multiple objects), 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description doesn't adequately explain the sophisticated control engineering concepts involved or the tool's operational context. The example helps but doesn't compensate for the missing conceptual explanation.

  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 description mentions 'plant dynamics and optional gradients/metadata' which aligns with the input schema's structure. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't adequately explain the complex nested parameter structure (plant, gains, simulation, setpoint, gust_detector, adaptive_cpg, moe_router, diffsph_metrics, foam_metrics, prefer_high_fidelity). The example input shows some parameters but doesn't cover the full complexity.

  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: 'Score PID gains for a flapping-wing plant' with specific verb ('Score') and resource ('PID gains'). It mentions providing 'plant dynamics and optional gradients/metadata' and returning 'key control metrics plus provenance'. However, without sibling tools, we cannot assess differentiation from alternatives.

  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 mentions the tool's function but offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations. The example input shows what data to provide, but doesn't explain when this analysis would be appropriate.

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