Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• weather-get_dailyC
  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. It states the tool 'gets' data (implying read-only) but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error conditions, or what the forecast includes (e.g., temperature, precipitation). For a weather API tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the main action and scope, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in this compact formulation.

  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?

  For a weather forecasting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what data the forecast returns (temperature, conditions, etc.), how results are structured, whether there are usage limits, or authentication requirements. The combination of missing behavioral context and output information creates significant gaps for an agent trying to use this tool effectively.

  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 adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It mentions 'up to 15 days' which aligns with the 'days' parameter enum, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, defaults, or practical usage examples. With complete schema documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 action ('Get daily weather forecast') and scope ('for up to 15 days'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'weather-get_hourly' beyond the 'daily' vs 'hourly' naming, missing an opportunity to clarify the distinction in forecast granularity.

  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 its sibling 'weather-get_hourly' or any alternatives. It mentions 'up to 15 days' but doesn't explain when to choose different day counts or why one might prefer daily over hourly forecasts, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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

• weather-get_hourlyA
  3.5/5.0
  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. It states the tool's function but omits critical behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format (e.g., JSON structure, timestamps). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves operationally.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get hourly weather forecast for the next 12 hours') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

  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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., rate limits, auth) and output format, which are important for a tool with no annotations. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in providing a complete operational context.

  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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('location' and 'units') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify location formats or unit defaults further). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

  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 specific action ('Get hourly weather forecast') and resource ('weather'), with precise temporal scope ('for the next 12 hours'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'weather-get_daily' by specifying hourly vs daily forecasts, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

  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 context through 'hourly' and 'next 12 hours', suggesting it's for short-term forecasts. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'weather-get_daily' (e.g., for daily vs hourly needs) or any prerequisites/exclusions, leaving usage decisions partially inferred rather than clearly stated.

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