Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ada_kurallarB
  3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the tool 'returns' rules, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits like permissions or response format; the output schema may cover the latter.

  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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, missing parameter details.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description should at least mention the optional language parameter. Its omission makes the description incomplete for the agent to use correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description does not mention the 'lang' parameter at all. The agent cannot infer the parameter's purpose from the description, leaving a significant gap.

  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 basic behavior rules of ADA Turbo. It uses a specific verb (döndürür) and resource (temel davranış kuralları), distinguishing it from sibling tools (ada_komutlar for commands, ada_workflow for workflows).

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says 'valid for every task', which implies always applicable but lacks a clear use case or exclusion criteria.

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

• ada_workflowB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description only states that the tool returns instructions. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, side effects, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

  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, with the main purpose upfront followed by usage instructions and parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is logical. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

  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 that an output schema exists (true), the tool description does not need to detail return values. It adequately explains the tool's input and behavior for a tool that returns workflow instructions. The mention that the agent must produce output according to the returned format provides necessary 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 has 0% description coverage, so the tool description must compensate. It provides basic meanings for each parameter (e.g., 'komut' is an ADA command, with examples; 'gorev' is optional context; 'lang' is language). While helpful, it lacks details like accepted formats or constraints beyond examples.

  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 that the tool returns instructions and format for running an ADA workflow command. It uses a specific verb ('döndürür') and resource ('workflow talimat ve formatı'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ada_komutlar or ada_kurallar, though the implied distinction is present.

  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 explains that the tool should be used when a /command or free task description is provided to retrieve workflow rules. It gives examples but does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives (siblings), leaving room for ambiguity.

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

• ada_komutlarA
  3.8/5.0
  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. It implies read-only behavior by stating 'lists', but does not disclose potential performance issues, pagination, or whether results are cached. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not exemplary.

  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 with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core functionality.

  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 has no parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description sufficiently explains that the output lists commands and their areas. It lacks detail on output format or edge cases, but for a simple listing it is reasonably 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?

  The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter-level information. The baseline score of 4 applies as no parameter documentation is required.

  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 lists all ADA agency commands and their associated area using a specific verb 'listeler' (lists) and resource 'ADA ajans komutları'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ada_kurallar' (rules) and 'ada_workflow' (workflow) by focusing on commands.

  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 does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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