Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• check_engagement_signalsB
  3.4/5.0
  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 a search and classification action but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or what side effects (if any) occur. The terms 'recent' and 'mock emails' are ambiguous, lacking details on time windows or the nature of such emails.

  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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

  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 that there is no output schema, the description should clarify how the classification is returned (e.g., as a string, a boolean, or a side effect). It fails to define what constitutes 'recent' (e.g., emails within the last 30 days) and what 'mock emails' implies. These gaps make the description incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

  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 schema already describes the single parameter 'service_name' with a clear description. The tool description adds valuable context by specifying 'mock emails' and the binary classification result (HIGH_ENGAGEMENT or NO_ENGAGEMENT), which enriches the parameter's meaning beyond the schema alone.

  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 action: search recent non-billing mock emails from a sender, and the outcome: classify subscription as HIGH_ENGAGEMENT or NO_ENGAGEMENT. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinct from sibling tools which handle financial metrics or cancellation playbooks.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to check engagement before cancellation or financial analysis. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios to avoid, or references to sibling tools.

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

• calculate_financial_metricsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It only lists outputs without disclosing whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. For a calculation tool, additional context about data dependencies or error handling would improve 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, concise sentence that communicates the core functionality without extraneous words. Every phrase adds value.

  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 no output schema, the description provides minimal information about the return format. The tool's simplicity (zero parameters) makes the description adequate, but it could list the specific metrics returned or note any limitations.

  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 schema has zero parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter info but implicitly explains what the tool returns. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as the description clarifies the output beyond just the tool name.

  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 computes total monthly/annual spend, savings, and price increases. The verb 'calculate' and resource 'financial metrics' are specific. Sibling tools like 'check_engagement_signals' and 'generate_cancellation_playbook' have distinct focuses, so the tool's purpose is well-differentiated.

  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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool, prerequisites, or when alternatives might be better. This forces the agent to infer context from the tool name and siblings.

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

• generate_cancellation_playbookA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral traits. It states the tool generates a guide, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention whether it modifies anything, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The description is adequate but lacks explicit disclosure.

  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 sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. Could potentially include more detail, but it is efficient and clear.

  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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains the purpose and output (a markdown guide). It covers what the tool does and what it returns, making it usable for an AI agent.

  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 single parameter 'service_name' has full schema coverage with a description. The tool description adds context by listing the platforms (PhonePe, GPay, Paytm) for which the guide is generated, which clarifies the expected input and adds value beyond the schema.

  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 generates a markdown guide for cancelling autopay on specific platforms (PhonePe, GPay, Paytm) for a given subscription service. The verb 'Generate' and resource 'markdown guide' are specific. However, the role of platforms vs. service name in the input could be clarified, slightly reducing clarity.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Sibling tools are unrelated, so there is no confusion, but the description does not specify conditions or prerequisites for using the tool (e.g., when a user wants cancellation steps). Usage is implied but not stated.

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