Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• next_deadlinesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what the return format is, or any rate limits. It only states the basic function, leaving significant gaps for a no-annotation scenario.

  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 sentence of 17 words, extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no unnecessary fluff.

  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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately conveys the general functionality. However, it does not specify what the returned timeline contains or how dates are highlighted, leaving some user questions unanswered.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the parameter 'tier' optionally highlights a date relevant to a given risk tier, adding some meaning. However, it does not elaborate on the enum values or the default behavior when the parameter is omitted.

  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 returns the EU AI Act compliance timeline, with an optional filter by risk tier. The verb 'Return' and resource 'EU AI Act compliance timeline' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like check_obligations.

  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 the tool is used to get compliance deadlines, optionally filtered by tier, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternative guidance is provided.

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

• scan_repoA
  4/5.0
  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 states the basic action and outcome (pass/warn/fail per artifact) but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions needed, error handling, or whether the tool is read-only. This leaves some behavioral aspects ambiguous.

  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 succinct sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and what it covers. No unnecessary words or information.

  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?

  The description covers the main purpose and the artifacts checked, which is sufficient given the tool's simplicity. However, it does not elaborate on the output format or define pass/warn/fail criteria, which could be beneficial.

  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?

  With 100% schema coverage, the schema already adequately describes the single parameter (path). The tool description does not add meaningful new information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

  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 scans a local repository for specific AI Act documentation artifacts and reports pass/warn/fail. It correctly distinguishes from sibling tools like check_obligations, classify_risk, and next_deadlines by focusing on scanning an existing repo.

  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 implies usage when checking AI Act documentation compliance but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct comparisons to alternatives. However, the context from sibling tools makes the appropriate use case clear.

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

• classify_riskA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses what the tool returns (likely tier with cited articles and Annex III categories) and that it is not legal advice. It does not mention any side effects, but the tool is read-only by nature.

  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 two concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and input/output, with a caveat in the second sentence. No wasted words.

  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 simple input and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the input format, output content, and caveat. It could be improved by mentioning the classification is based on the description alone, but it is largely complete.

  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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'description'. The description's mention of 'plain-English description' adds slight reinforcement but no significant new meaning beyond the schema's own description.

  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 classifies AI systems under EU AI Act risk tiers using a plain-English description, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_obligations or next_deadlines.

  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?

  It explicitly mentions the input is a plain-English description of the AI system and includes a caveat ('informational triage, not legal advice'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, though 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.

• check_obligationsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided; the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's behavior as a list operation with citations, which is transparent enough. No destructive or side effects mentioned, but not required for a query tool.

  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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'List', no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

  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?

  The description covers input parameters well but does not describe the output format beyond mentioning article citations. Given no output schema, it is adequate but could be slightly more complete.

  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 has 0% description coverage, so the description adds value by explaining each parameter's purpose: tier and role for obligations, and is_gpai for general-purpose AI. It adds meaning beyond enum names.

  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?

  Description clearly states it lists concrete EU AI Act obligations based on risk tier and role, with article citations. It distinguishes from siblings like classify_risk (classification) and next_deadlines (deadlines) by focusing on obligations.

  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 gives clear context on when to use: specify risk tier, role, and optionally is_gpai for general-purpose AI. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the usage is implied.

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