Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• check_message_safetyB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool classifies messages but doesn't describe how it behaves: it doesn't mention response format (though an output schema exists), accuracy or confidence levels, latency, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it logs or stores data. For a safety-critical tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality ('Classify a message'), and every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the classification criteria. There's zero waste or redundancy.

  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 moderate complexity (safety classification with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., how classification works, error handling) and usage guidelines. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but the description should do more to address safety implications and operational details.

  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%, with both parameters ('message' and 'session_id') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain message format constraints or session_id usage details). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

  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 with a specific verb ('Classify') and resource ('a message'), specifying the classification criteria ('for self-harm or criminal intent'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_session_risk' and 'list_recent_escalations' by focusing on message classification rather than session-level or historical data analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from potential alternatives beyond the provided siblings.

  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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context for use (e.g., real-time monitoring vs. batch processing), or comparisons with sibling tools like 'get_session_risk' (which might assess session-level risk) or 'list_recent_escalations' (which might show historical flagged messages). Usage is implied by the classification purpose but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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

• get_session_riskB
  3.2/5.0
  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 states the tool returns risk trajectory but does not explain what 'risk trajectory' entails (e.g., format, scale, or interpretation), whether it's a read-only operation, or any side effects like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 complexity is low (one parameter, no nested objects) and an output schema exists (which should detail return values), the description is reasonably complete for a simple query tool. However, it lacks behavioral context that would be helpful for an agent, such as what 'risk trajectory' means or any usage caveats.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'session_id' parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, but since the schema is comprehensive, 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 ('Return') and the resource ('current risk trajectory for a session'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_message_safety' or 'list_recent_escalations', which might also relate to risk assessment but focus on different aspects.

  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 does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and context alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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

• list_recent_escalationsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns events but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or the format/structure of the returned data. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description itself lacks behavioral context.

  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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential function without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, audit log querying), the description adequately states what it does. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, and the 100% schema coverage handles parameters. However, it lacks context on usage scenarios or behavioral traits, which would be helpful for an agent.

  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 the input schema fully documents both parameters (limit and category). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the significance of categories or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

  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 ('Return') and resource ('recent escalation events from the audit log'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_message_safety' or 'get_session_risk', which appear to serve different functions (safety checking and risk assessment rather than audit log retrieval).

  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. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name and parameters alone.

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