Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• a2a_sendA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Mentions immediate return and rejection when not your turn, but does not describe side effects, idempotency, or whether it modifies state. Since annotations are absent, more behavioral detail would be helpful.

  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?

  Three sentences with no redundancy. Directly explains action, precondition, and postcondition.

  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?

  Covers the key usage pattern with wait_turn, the rejection condition, and the immediate return. Lacks details about return value and error handling, but overall sufficient for a simple tool.

  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 only parameter 'message' is described as a reply, giving some semantic meaning, but no format, length, or content constraints are provided. Schema has no description, so the description carries a light burden.

  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?

  Clearly states the tool submits a reply to the current pending turn, and references the wait_turn flow. No ambiguity.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly instructs to call a2a_wait_turn first to see the prompt, and to call it again for the next turn. Also notes rejection when it's not your turn, providing clear usage boundaries.

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

• a2a_connectA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for transparency. It discloses key behaviors: validation of the Agent Card, refusal with a validator report on failure, starting a background session and returning immediately on success, and the note that neither the card URL nor bearer are echoed back. These details give the agent a solid model of side effects and return behavior.

  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 moderately concise, containing multiple pieces of necessary information (purpose, validation, success behavior, follow-up, optional parameter, security note). It is well-structured with clear sentences, but slightly longer than strictly necessary. Still, every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

  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 (validation, background session, follow-up action), the description covers the essential context: what to pass, what to expect on failure vs. success, and where to go next (`a2a_wait_turn`). It does not detail the output schema or error conditions, but these are less critical for a first call. Overall, it provides enough context for the agent to use the tool correctly in a typical flow.

  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 gives clear semantics for `bearer` (optional, only when auth is required), but for `agent_card_url` it only implies from context that it is the endpoint URL. This is partial coverage; a more explicit definition of `agent_card_url` would improve the score.

  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's primary function: "Connect to a standard A2A endpoint and start streaming its turns." It uses specific verbs (connect, start streaming) and identifies the resource (A2A endpoint). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools implicitly by describing the connect/start action, which is unique among the listed siblings.

  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 provides actionable usage guidance: it tells the user to call `a2a_wait_turn` after success, and explains when to pass `bearer` ("pass it only if the endpoint requires auth"). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like `a2a_validate` or `a2a_send`, but the sequencing and conditional parameter guidance are clear enough for correct use.

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

• a2a_leaveA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It explicitly describes the effect (cancel background driver, close session) and notes safety conditions, though it omits potential edge-case side effects.

  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 concise sentences with no redundant wording. Directly conveys purpose and safety without extra fluff.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, single action), the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage context sufficiently. Output schema exists, so return details are not required.

  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?

  No parameters exist; baseline score of 4 applies. Nothing further to document.

  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?

  Clearly states the action (disconnect) and the resource (session), plus ancillary detail (cancel background driver). Distinct from sibling tools like connect or send.

  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?

  Provides clear context by noting 'Safe to call even if not connected,' implying it can be used any time. Does not explicitly compare to alternatives but gives sufficient usage context.

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

• a2a_statusA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description implies a read-only status check via 'snapshot,' but it does not explicitly guarantee no side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries this burden and mostly satisfies it.

  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 extremely concise, using two short sentences to convey the tool's purpose and recommended usage. No unnecessary details are included.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a parameterless status tool with an output schema present, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what it does and when to invoke it.

  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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter-level explanation is unnecessary. The baseline score of 4 applies because there is nothing about parameters that needs clarification.

  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 identifies the tool as a status snapshot, checking connectivity, turn state, session status, and errors. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that connect, send, leave, validate, or wait for a turn.

  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 says the tool is useful to re-orient after a gap in the conversation, giving a clear use case. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the context makes the appropriate scenario clear.

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

• a2a_wait_turnA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and does well: it discloses blocking behavior with a timeout, all possible return outcomes, and the expected follow-up action. This is highly transparent.

  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 efficient and well-organized, listing behaviors and outcomes in a compact form. It is slightly dense in the second sentence but remains focused and readable.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  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 fully covers the tool's behavior, return values, and the appropriate workflow. No critical information is missing.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The single parameter max_seconds is described in context as the bound for waiting, and the default value is stated. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema type and default.

  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 verb 'wait' and the object 'next turn's prompt', and distinguishes this tool from siblings like a2a_send and a2a_status by focusing specifically on waiting for an incoming turn.

  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 explains when to use the tool (to wait for a turn) and what to do with the result (show to human, get reply, then call a2a_send), but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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

• a2a_validateA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description supplies key behavioral facts: it only fetches and inspects, never connects or sends, and does not echo the bearer token. This adequately conveys the safety profile.

  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?

  Three sentences pack purpose, parameter meanings, and behavioral guarantees without fluff. The structure is well organized and directly relevant.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

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

  The description covers what the tool does, its inputs, and the nature of the output (valid?/checks/warnings). Given an output schema exists, additional return-value details are not necessary.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The schema has no descriptions, but the description explains agent_card_url as the full served URL and bearer as optional and needed only when auth is required. Both parameters are semantically covered.

  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?

  Clearly states it validates Agent Cards at any standard A2A endpoint and returns a readable report. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or send by focusing on validation/inspection.

  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?

  Implicitly tells when to use: whenever you need to validate an Agent Card, and explicitly notes it does not connect or send. It does not name sibling alternatives, but the read-only validation purpose is unambiguous.

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