Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• pterasim.simulateB
  3.3/5.0
  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 mentions 'UVLM fallback' and 'solver metadata,' hinting at computational behavior and potential fallback mechanisms, but doesn't detail performance characteristics, error conditions, or what 'high fidelity' entails. It adds some context but leaves gaps for a simulation 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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences covering purpose, inputs, outputs, and an example. Every sentence adds value, though the example could be better integrated. 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.

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity (aerodynamic simulation with 11 parameters) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and outputs (aided by the output schema), but lacks details on parameter interactions, fallback behavior, and error handling. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's 0% coverage.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example with key parameters (span_m, chord_m, num_timesteps) and mentions 'wing geometry, flapping schedule, and timestep count,' which helps interpret the schema. However, it doesn't fully explain all 11 parameters or their relationships, leaving some ambiguity.

  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: 'Generate aerodynamic coefficients with UVLM fallback' and specifies the required inputs ('wing geometry, flapping schedule, and timestep count') and outputs ('forces, torques, and solver metadata'). It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't need to distinguish from siblings since none exist.

  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 minimal usage guidance. It lists what to supply but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, mention prerequisites, or provide context about when the UVLM fallback might be triggered. With no siblings, this is less critical, but still lacks comprehensive guidance.

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